Oral Answers to Questions

TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Pension Funds

Nick Hurd: What the Treasury's latest estimate is of the cost to pension funds of the abolition of dividend tax relief in 1997; and if he will make a statement.

Edward Balls: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out to the House on 17 April, the Treasury recycled revenues from abolishing the dividend tax credit through cutting the main corporation tax rate from 33 per cent. to 31 per cent. and then 30 per cent., cutting capital gains tax, and introducing the research and development tax credit. Since 1997, we have experienced a decade of stability, with the fastest growth in business investment in any nine-year period since data began in the 1960s.

Nick Hurd: The Chancellor told us that his aim in taking £5 billion a year out of pension fund income was to stimulate business investment. As a proportion of GDP, has business investment risen or fallen since 1997, and what does that say about the success of the policy?

Edward Balls: As I told the House, we have had the fastest growth in business investment in any nine-year period since the 1960s. It has risen by 50 per cent. since 1997. Investment has been rising because of the stability that we have delivered and because of the tough decisions that we were prepared to take in 1997.

James McGovern: Recently, a prominent multinational company that employs many of my constituents announced a decision to close its defined-benefit pension scheme. It claimed that that was largely because of increased life expectancy and the changes in actuarial advice brought about by that. Has my hon. Friend made any assessment of actuarial advice in relation to increased life expectancy and the effect on pension funds, and if so, what steps can we take to make sure that these problems do not arise in the future?

Edward Balls: I have made that assessment, as we discussed in our debate a few weeks ago. The assessment of Mr. Stephen Yeo, a consultant at Watson Wyatt and a former pensions adviser to the Conservative party, is that the dividends tax credit issue
	"is not among the top three"
	causes of concern to pension funds. He goes on to tell us recently that pension fund deficits are now at
	"the lowest figure since records began."

Greg Clark: The Minister will know that the dividend tax credit changes have affected charities as well as pension funds. When I last raised that issue with the Chancellor, he claimed that gift aid changes had more than compensated for the reduction in tax relief. When he said that, was he aware that since 1997 the total tax repayment to charities has fallen by £100 million in real terms? In other words, charities are being taxed by stealth just the same as the rest of us.

Edward Balls: But the fact is that extra transitional relief was given to charities when the decision was made in 1997 and since then there has been a substantial rise in the amount of tax relief available for gift aid, as a result of decisions made by the Government.

David Drew: Under the previous Government, one of the particular aspects of what happened was the offer of early retirement. In a whole range of employments, it was quite common for people to start retiring from their 50s upwards. Has any analysis been done of the impact that that has had on pension funds and, in particular, of the way in which that has completely skewed the employment of people in the labour market?

Edward Balls: My hon. Friend is right to point out those trends. There is also the fact that in the early 1980s the trend began to shift away from occupational schemes. There are also the pension holidays that occurred in the 1990s. The fact is that a fall in the stock market and an increase in life expectancy were the main drivers of the change in pension funds. Despite that, as we discussed in the debate with the shadow Chancellor, the assets of pension funds have not gone down since 1997; they have gone up.

Brooks Newmark: Our estimates of the cost to pensioners of the Chancellor's tax raid range between £100 billion and £150 billion. What analysis has the Economic Secretary done of the cost to pensioners?

Edward Balls: The fact is that those figures are nonsense. As I said, the assets of pension funds have gone up, rather than down. The number of pensioners in poverty has not gone up; it has gone down by 2.1 million. The Government made decisions in 1997 to make the Bank of England independent, to introduce fiscal rules, to have a windfall tax on the privatised utilities and to make tax changes—all of which have delivered stability in our economy and all of which were opposed by Opposition Members. Government is about making tough decisions; we did that and they opposed them.

Employment

Kitty Ussher: What steps he plans to take to increase employment levels over the next five years.

Gordon Brown: There are nearly 29 million people in employment—that is well over 2.5 million more people in work than in 1997. In the Budget, I announced a new partnership with retailers that could help up to 100,000 men and women to find employment over the next five years. There is now higher employment in every region and country of the United Kingdom than in 1997.

Kitty Ussher: I am grateful for that response. With unemployment so low—it has gone down by 18 per cent. in my constituency alone over the past 10 years—and employment at record highs, does my right hon. Friend agree that now is not the time to be abolishing the new deal?

Gordon Brown: I agree with my hon. Friend. Employment in the north-west is up by 250,000 since 1997. In every region of the country, employment has risen fast since 1997. One of the reasons why employment has risen is the new deal, which helps people to get back into work and to train for new skills. It would be an absolute tragedy if, at a stage when we are trying to get further people back into work, the Conservative party's policy of abolishing the new deal was adopted. I hope that that party will think twice about its proposal to abolish the new deal, which would deprive the unemployed of help and bring us back to the days of high unemployment that we saw under the Conservatives.

Tim Boswell: Could the Chancellor tell the House his opinion of the balance between full-time and part-time employment in the creation of new jobs?

Gordon Brown: I would have thought that the best way of looking at this is that we provide choices for people in the economy. By providing such choices, some can do part-time jobs while others can do full-time jobs. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to support that, I hope that he will support the tax credit system, which enables single parents, especially, to go into work by taking part-time jobs. That is one of the reasons why the percentage of single parents in employment has risen from 43 per cent. to 55 per cent. under a Labour Government.
	If the hon. Gentleman is in any doubt about the Labour Government's success in increasing jobs, let me read to him the mid-term report of a Conservative policy group:
	"For the last five years interest rates have been at low levels and credit therefore has been cheap. For the past ten years inflation has been low, the stop-go cycle has given way to continued economic growth and there has been full employment."
	It is not us saying that, but the Conservative party.

Louise Ellman: Despite record high employment, far too many young people leave school without qualifications and do not go into training or a job. Does my right hon. Friend have any proposals on a new initiative to deal with that growing problem?

Gordon Brown: That was why we announced in the Budget new measures to help young people to make the transition from leaving school without qualifications and a job to getting back into the work process through getting either training or a job. It is why we are building on the situation between 1997 and now in which the number of 16 to 24-year-olds in work has risen from 3.9 million to 4.1 million, while the number in full-time education has risen from 2.1 million to 2.7 million. Let me quote the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson). He wrote:
	"Most important of all, they have no trouble getting a job...we have almost full employment in this country".
	It is not me saying that, but the Conservative party.

Michael Fallon: But how much higher would employment levels have been if more people had been encouraged into work by an efficient, well administered tax credit system that had not lost £2 billion? Has it not occurred to the Chancellor that the things for which he is not responsible, such as monetary policy and the private sector, have done rather well, while everything that he has touched—tax credits, the sale of gold and pensions—has been a complete disaster?

Gordon Brown: Mr. Speaker, this Member of Parliament and his party voted against the independence of the Bank of England —[ Interruption. ] Conservative Members say that that is history, but we will continue to remind them of the important lessons of history. Making the Bank of England independent gave us stability and prevented us from returning to the stop-go economics that bedevilled us for 18 years under the Conservatives.
	If the hon. Gentleman was being honest with us about the tax credit situation and his statements reflected what was happening on the ground, he would acknowledge that one of the reasons why we have 2.5 million more people in work is tax credits. I fear that he wants to cut tax credits because he is a member of the No Turning Back group—[Hon. Members: "Oh."] Yes. Instead of wanting tax credits, the group wants £35 billion to £50 billion of tax cuts. That is the dividing line between the two parties.

Don Touhig: Encouraging business start-ups and entrepreneurship is vital to job creation in Wales. What is being done to help people who want to start up their own businesses?

Gordon Brown: We have done more over the past few years to help young people and entrepreneurs, in particular, to find the chance of being able to start their own business, whether that is in Wales, through the efforts of the Welsh Assembly, or throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. When we came to power, the rate of business creation was half that in the United States of America. The rate of business creation, particularly among young people, is rising, we are giving more incentives, and the venture capital industry is developing for people who want to move on from simply starting a business to getting new capital, and we will continue to do more in the future. The record in Wales, of course, is one of more jobs since 1997, and we will continue that record in the years to come.

George Osborne: May I welcome the Chancellor on what must be one of the happiest days of his political career? Even the blacked-out windows will not conceal the smile today. May I ask him a question that he has spent all week avoiding? Does he think that his failed policies, including his employment policy, which the Public Accounts Committee described this week as being responsible for
	"the highest rates of error and fraud in government",
	played any part in Labour's election defeat last week, or was that entirely due to the unique leadership of the Prime Minister?

Hon. Members: Answer!

Gordon Brown: What the Conservative party will not acknowledge when supposedly talking about the economy is that, as the Conservative party mid-term report on policy said—[Hon. Members: "Answer!"] They do not like it, because the report also talks about a "period of unprecedented prosperity" in our country.  [Interruption.] I remind the shadow Chancellor—this is, after all, a question on employment in the economy—that there are 600,000 vacancies in the economy. There is one more today, actually, as a result of announcements that have just been made. The shadow Chancellor has acknowledged Labour's success in macro-economic policy, and he has acknowledged that Labour has established economic credibility. Is it not about time that the Conservatives admitted that they have lost the argument on the economy, that we are creating jobs in this country, that we have unprecedented economic growth, and that we have a record of economic stability that is unparalleled in our history?

George Osborne: If the right hon. Gentleman's employment policies are so popular, how come 500 Labour councillors and one First Minister are looking for jobs this week? He is responsible for the failures of this Government—the pensions raid, the chaotic administration of tax credits, the record stealth taxes and the chronic waste of money. How can he be the change that the country wants when he is responsible for the present mess? He has been in hiding for a week, but I ask him to answer this simple question: why did Labour lose last week?

Gordon Brown: What the shadow Chancellor will not acknowledge is that there are 2.5 million more jobs in the economy, that unemployment is at half the level that it was in the 1980s, that long-term employment has gone down by 75 per cent., and that youth long-term unemployment has been virtually extinguished as a result of what we have achieved. If the Conservative party will not, through the shadow Chancellor, face up to its weakness on the economy, let me tell Conservative Members about the speech of their guru, the former shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who says in explicit terms that the age of talking about the economy is over for the Conservative party; it will now just talk about social issues. He says:
	"Instead of arguing about systems of economic management, we have to discuss how to make better lives out of the prosperity generated by the free market."
	Is it not about time that the shadow Chancellor admitted that in his two years as shadow Chancellor, he has made absolutely no progress in developing an economic policy? He cannot even tell us, having promised to do so, that he will match us on public spending. We are the party that is creating economic stability, economic growth and jobs for the people of this country.

Helen Goodman: The Prime Minister is in his Sedgefield constituency this morning, where the level of unemployment is now below the national average, at 2.3 per cent. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell the House whether he will continue with the policies of supporting science and co-operation between universities and industry that have brought so many jobs to the north-east?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I know the interest that she takes in both employment and the development of creative and science industries. We have doubled the science budget; we have created a science city in Newcastle, and there is a science city in York. There is pressure to do more in other parts of the region, and we will respond to that, both through the development agency and through what central Government can do. We will continue our record, which has created in the north-east alone 108,000 jobs since 1997. The one thing on which the Conservatives are totally silent is any economic policy for the future.

Vincent Cable: The Chancellor is quite right that there is a positive story to tell about employment growth, but does he acknowledge that serious problems remain in the labour market? How, in particular, does he explain the fact that the employment rate among men is now 10 per cent. lower than it was when Harold Wilson presided over the economy?

Gordon Brown: There are 2.5 million more jobs in the economy. The reason why there are 29 million people in work is that we did not take the advice of the Liberal party but did the right thing by the economy, both in our policies for economic stability and in our public investment. If I may say so, the very tax credits that the hon. Gentleman's party opposes are one reason why more single parents are in work today, and we will continue with that.

Brian H Donohoe: On the question of unemployment, in my constituency it has dropped like a stone since 1997. However, has the Chancellor taken stock of the position after the election last week on the momentum of those jobs and the continuing increase in jobs north of the border?

Gordon Brown: Scotland has increased its employment by more in the past year than almost any other part of the country, and it will continue to create jobs if it produces the right policies both in the Scottish Parliament and in the UK Government. One of the things that we are determined to do over the next few months is help people get jobs in the retail, construction, and hospitality and hotel sectors, and there are programmes to develop the new deal in those areas that will create more jobs both in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Inequality

Paul Rowen: What steps he has taken to reduce levels of inequality since 1997.

Stephen Timms: Stability in the economy, together with the new deal, the national minimum wage and tax credits, has led to a strong growth in living standards across the whole range of income levels. Employment is up by 2.5 million; the number of children below the poverty line has been reduced by 600,000, and the number of pensioners in that position by 1 million.

Paul Rowen: Could the Minister explain why the number of pensioners in poverty remains at 1.8 million? What steps can he take to try to eradicate or reduce those numbers?

Stephen Timms: The figure that the hon. Gentleman gave is 1 million less than it was 10 years ago, thanks to the success of the policies that we have introduced, particularly the success of the pension credit, which has relegated abject pensioner poverty, which was far too widespread in 1997, to the history books. It has had a dramatic impact, and the level of pension credit was subject to its biggest increase ever last month. We will maintain that policy. The consequence is that whereas in the past pensioners were more likely to be poor than other population groups, today they are less likely to be so.

Eric Illsley: How can the Minister reconcile himself to the notion of reducing inequality when his own Department has pioneered regional pay rates throughout the civil service, which means that people in different areas are paid different rates for doing exactly the same job? What message does that send out on the future of the national minimum wage? Will we have a regional minimum wage in future?

Stephen Timms: I think that it is right to ensure maximum opportunities for employment around the country, because it is the case that wage levels vary. On inequality, may I tell my hon. Friend that a good measure of income inequality is the ratio between incomes at the 90th and 10th percentiles of distribution, and that that ratio has fallen under the Government's policies?

Gregory Barker: A commitment to reduce inequality is totally at odds with the slashing of grants for domestic microgeneration announced yesterday, depriving the less well-off of access to new green technology. Is that not just further evidence of the fact that the Chancellor's sudden interest in the environment and climate change is about as credible and genuine as his professed love of the Arctic Monkeys?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman's question is inventive, given the topic for the original question. He should be speaking to his own Front-Bench team, who have failed to match our projections on public spending. If he wants more grants, he will need to persuade them to spend more money.

Angela Eagle: Does my right hon. Friend share my pride that this Labour Government are the first Government ever to break the link between poverty and old age?

Stephen Timms: I do share that pride, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining that. It has been an historic breakthrough, thanks to the introduction of winter fuel payments and all the other steps that we have taken, and in particular the success of the pension credit.

Paul Goodman: The Minister did not mention equality in his original answer, so may I ask him this about the Chancellor's legacy: has the ratio of incomes of the top 20 per cent. compared with the bottom 20 per cent. risen or fallen since the Chancellor took office in 1997?

Stephen Timms: Let me underline what I said a few moments ago. The ratio of income at the 90th percentile of the distribution, which is what the hon. Gentleman is asking about, and the 10th percentile rocketed under the policies of the Conservatives when they were in government, but it has now fallen. Under the Tories, the richer one was, the faster one's income grew. Under the policies that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been promoting, income growth for the least well-off 40 per cent. of households has been faster than for the better-off.

Rob Marris: I salute what the Government have done for today's poorest pensioners. However, we are building up a problem for the future in relation to equality for tomorrow's pensioners. We have tax relief that costs the Exchequer £18 billion a year. It is incredibly regressive—50 per cent. is claimed by the top 10 per cent. of earners, and 25 per cent. is claimed by the top 2.5 per cent. of earners, yet the Department for Work and Pensions has no evidence that tax relief on pension contributions encourages pension savings. Will my right hon. Friend re-examine that £18 billion giveaway, mostly to the rich?

Stephen Timms: We have considered all those issues in the recent review of policy on pensions, and the decisions that we set out in the White Paper have been taken forward in legislation. It is right that we continue to encourage pension saving, including through the tax relief arrangements that we have in place.

Household Debt

George Young: What assessment he has made of the average levels of household indebtedness in the UK in comparison to other European countries.

Edward Balls: Levels of household debt have risen over the past decade, as in other European countries. As a proportion of total debt, unsecured household debt is at its lowest point since 1997, but levels of secured household debt have risen by 153 per cent. as a result of the 1.8 million rise in the number of home owners in Britain.

George Young: But can the Minister confirm that the average UK consumer owes more than twice the average of the average western European consumer? Related to that, has he read a recent speech by the Governor of the Bank of England, in which he spoke of the rise in indebtedness and bankruptcies, and described it as a
	"social problem that is materialising"?
	Does the hon. Gentleman agree, and what does he intend to do about it?

Edward Balls: The right hon. Gentleman is right. We have a higher level of household debt than other European countries, because we have a higher number of people with mortgages who are buying their homes. Since 1997 we have also had a 65 per cent. rise in the wealth of households, and the average net wealth of households in the UK is higher than in France or Germany. The right hon. Gentleman is right that where consumers get into distress, we need to do more to help them. I shall be in Leeds tomorrow, launching a Leeds pilot on tackling loan sharks who exploit people who get into trouble with unsecured debt. However, the fact that there are more people with mortgages who are buying their homes is a good thing, which has been delivered since 1997.

Mark Todd: Will my hon. Friend accept my commendation of the initiatives that have taken place to improve the availability of products to poorer families, which take them away from the loan shark market? That may be a partial explanation of the fall in unsecured loans to which he draws attention.

Edward Balls: My hon. Friend is right. We need to crack down on illegal loan sharks through policing and trading standards, but at the same time ensure that there are decent, affordable alternatives. That is why we have a £36 million growth fund which we have increased by £6 million so as to provide, through credit unions and other mutuals, more affordable credit for low-income consumers. We are determined not only to crack down on illegal lending but to ensure that decent alternatives are available for those families.

Theresa Villiers: The House will be aware that households struggling with problem debt are likely to face a further increase in interest rates this afternoon. Is the Minister concerned that after 10 years the Chancellor's economic legacy will be personal debt at £1.3 trillion, falling living standards, rising interest rates, and inflation at a 16-year high? Does he agree with Kate Barker's analysis that the Chancellor's fiscal policy has been partly responsible for the increasing interest rates that are hitting so many families so hard?

Edward Balls: I do not agree with the hon. Lady at all. The fact is that we have more people with mortgages buying their own homes and they are paying lower levels of interest rates than they were 15 or 20 years ago. Under the Conservative Government, we had 15 per cent. interest rates, negative equity above 75,000 and record repossessions. Since 1997, this Government have put that instability behind us and delivered stability. That is why people can afford their mortgages and their debt and can live with prosperity.

Denis MacShane: If we might revert to the question, I hope that the Conservatives are not suggesting that the Government should dictate to people what they can and cannot borrow to buy a house, a car or whatever. Where the Government do have control over debt—that is to say, national debt—is it not a fact that British Government debt is about two thirds of the EU average, half that of Belgium, half that of Greece, far lower than France—where every penny of income tax is used to pay off French national debt—and 10 percentage points lower than when the Conservatives were last in power, when so much of our income tax was used to pay off debt because of their economic incompetence?

Edward Balls: My right hon. Friend is right. We have low levels of national debt because of tough decisions that we took on fiscal policy and on tax, including on pension credit in the early period of this Government. A few weeks ago, the shadow pensions Minister told "The Daily Politics" that the decision we took on pension credit should be looked at and that the Conservatives would like to find a way of putting that kind of money back into pensions. The question that I would like to ask is whether the shadow pensions Minister was acting with the permission of the shadow Chancellor.

Angela Watkinson: Recent figures show that a record 30,000 people became insolvent in the first three months of this year. What assessment has the Minister made of that figure?

Edward Balls: It is right that in a dynamic economy we create businesses, and also businesses go out of business. In fact, we have a much lower level of insolvency than in the United States, which is a more dynamic economy. It is important to have more risk-taking businesses. We have many more small businesses now than 10 years ago, which is a sign of success in our economy.

International Debt Relief

Alun Michael: What recent steps he has taken towards international debt relief and financing of international development; and if he will make a statement.

Gordon Brown: Twenty-two countries have now received debt relief. We expect another five countries to qualify for cancellation in 2007. I am also working with international colleagues to ensure that Liberia can receive debt relief as soon as possible.

Alun Michael: In congratulating the Chancellor on his leadership of the international community on debt relief, which stands in stark contrast to the record of the Conservatives, may I probe him on the issue of international development? Does he agree that if we are to see long-term positive developments in the third world, it is important to have co-operative models that empower individuals and communities to be entrepreneurial and to take control of their own futures?

Gordon Brown: I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has done to promote international development, particularly through his interest in Africa. The discussions that we are having are not simply about debt relief, education and health, important as those are, but about how we can raise levels of agricultural productivity, enhance micro-credit and bring about economic development in these countries. It is, however, necessary, when we are doing these things, to ensure that there is sufficient international development aid available for supporting micro-credit and economic development, as well as education and health. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the record of the Conservatives, who halved the level of overseas aid as a percentage of national income. The figures that have just come out show that under a Labour Government we have doubled it.

David Laws: One of the countries in particular need of development assistance is Iraq. The position is worsened by the internal conflict, which we have partly helped to precipitate. What changes in Government policy on Iraq can we expect when the Chancellor becomes Prime Minister?

Gordon Brown: At the recent conference where the Iraq compact was discussed, more countries agreed to provide additional debt relief to Iraq. Everybody understands that it is incredibly important for the future for people to have a stake in Iraq through policies of economic development and creating employment. To answer the question specifically: there has been more debt relief for Iraq.

Nicholas Winterton: May I genuinely congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on being about to achieve a long-standing ambition, and wish him well? And in respect of this question, may I ask how he selects the countries that are eligible for debt relief? Clearly, it is important to select countries to give them debt relief, not only to enable them to borrow more money but so that they can create a better quality of life for the people of those countries. How are those countries selected?

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman is right; we cannot give debt relief unless there is a guarantee that the money will go towards poverty reduction, education and health. In recent years, it has been remarkable that, as we have given debt relief and provided aid, in Kenya, for example, 1 million children have been able to go to school, in Uganda we have trebled the number of young children in education, and in Zambia and Tanzania the number of children in education is rising. Those are examples of the results of debt relief and providing aid. I hope that Conservative Members will not say, as they tend to do, that aid does not work. What does not work is doing nothing. What does work is what we have done to provide educational opportunity and health in Africa.

Millennium Development Goals

Shona McIsaac: What recent discussions he has had with international counterparts on the provision of funding for the millennium development goals.

Gordon Brown: Since 2004, there has been an increase of 25 per cent. in real terms in aid. The UK has contributed £1.3 billion over 20 years to the international finance facility for immunisation to vaccinate 500 million children. We are one of six donors to a £1.5 billion fund to prevent more than 5 million childhood deaths from pneumococcal disease by 2030.

Shona McIsaac: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on all that the Government have done to tackle global poverty, especially in Africa? I recently visited John Harrison school in my constituency to see the marvellous work that the children were doing as part of the "Send my friend to school" and "Every child needs a teacher" initiatives. Will my right hon. Friend send a message to those children about what the Government will do to secure free primary education for all?

Gordon Brown: Our aim is that the 80 million children who do not go to school at the moment will get the chance to do so. One of the ways in which that can be progressed is linking schools in our country with schools in Africa, so that teachers undertake exchanges with teachers in Africa. We thus build up the links that consolidate public opinion not only in Britain but in other countries, so that we can support the education for all initiative.  [Interruption.] I am sorry that Opposition Members have lost interest in such issues over the past few months. I am sorry that they are not prepared to match us on overseas development aid. I am also sorry that, although the shadow Chancellor was asked on 1 March, and promised to tell us, whether he would match our spending programme, he has refused to do so—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say gently to the Prime Minister— [Laughter.] I am getting into practice for the Wednesday. Let me say to the Chancellor that I have given him a great deal of leeway, but we must stop now. He has done well.

Graham Stuart: What assessment has the Chancellor made of the number of millennium development goals that will be met by 2015?

Gordon Brown: It was precisely because we were worried that we would not meet the millennium development goals by 2015 that we held the education conference in Brussels last Wednesday. We received promises from a whole range of countries that they would step up to ensure that we meet the educational goal by 2015. As far as health is concerned, we are trying to bring together the international community to work together to eliminate diseases such as pneumonia and tuberculosis, which will also require additional funds over the next few years. It is precisely because the rest of the international community has not done what we have already done, which is to raise development aid substantially, that we will continue to press the international community to do so—and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us in doing that.

Tom Clarke: As a member of the all-party group that recently visited India, can I assure my right hon. Friend that we were very much focused on millennium development goal 6, particularly when 1,000 people a day die of tuberculosis in India and the country has other problems such as HIV/AIDS? The other side of the picture is that the growing economy in India offers hope that if resources are widely shared for the many and not the few, we can indeed achieve the millennium development goals. Will my right hon. Friend continue to support that strategy?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has taken a long-standing interest in these issues and who, like me, recently visited India. He has seen that there is a long way to go in India, with 10 million children still not in school. There is also a long way to go, even as that country develops its wealth, to solve the health problems that my right hon. Friend mentioned. We will continue to support the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which is not simply for HIV/AIDS, but for tuberculosis and other diseases. We will support all the necessary research to provide a preventive cure for malaria and other diseases where new inventions and innovations are needed, and we will continue to build the capacity of health care systems in the poorest countries in the world and work with those countries to do so. I see emerging partnerships between trusts and foundations such as the Gates Foundation and private sector companies, as well as Governments, in doing exactly that. I hope that we will gain all-party support when we do so.

Philip Dunne: The Chancellor has just highlighted the importance of education in achieving the millennium development goals, particularly in Africa—something with which I and, I am sure, all Members agree. Why is it, then, that a British-based charity, Book Aid International, which has a 40-year track record of providing books to schools in Africa—indeed, to 17 countries in sub-Saharan Africa—last month had its annual long-standing grant terminated by the Chancellor?

Gordon Brown: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that that was not a decision by the Treasury, if it was a decision by the Government at all. I shall look into the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises with me. I also have to say that I have had talks with many educational publishers and foundations about how to increase the supply of books to Africa. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that we have doubled the amount of money invested in schools, teachers, books and education generally in classrooms in Africa. I hope that, whatever has happened to that individual charity, the hon. Gentleman will not deny the basic fact that we have doubled expenditure on education, made £8.5 billion available for the next 10 years and done more than any other country to make such finance available, and are calling on the rest of the international community to join us.

Cremation Certificates

Bill Olner: Whether he plans to retain the exemption from VAT for fees charged by doctors on certificates required by the funeral industry prior to cremation.

John Healey: The answer is yes. I can confirm that where fees charged by doctors for completing cremation forms are within the scope of VAT and are, from 1 May, no longer covered by the medical services exemption, VAT is still not chargeable. This is covered by the exemption in relation to services for burials and cremations. My hon. Friend is chair of the all-party funerals and bereavement group, and I hope that he and the other members of the group will welcome the announcement.

Bill Olner: The whole industry will welcome what the Minister has just said. There was grave concern— [Laughter]—Pardon the pun. There was much concern within the industry that VAT would be levied at 17.5 per cent., so I am grateful for the Minister's response. Will he continue his dialogue with the National Association of Funeral Directors, so that these services, which are very serious for many of us at a time of loss, are continued?

John Healey: Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs will indeed continue its discussions with the National Association of Funeral Directors. My hon. Friend will recognise that the United Kingdom's VAT system has some of the most generous and wide-ranging reliefs and exemptions in Europe, and the Government have fought hard to keep it that way. I am glad that we have been able to avoid imposing additional costs in this area, as this is clearly a matter of concern to many in the industry, and to bereaved families at a time of great concern.

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the Minister on securing that exemption, but is he committed to securing similar arrangements regarding the requirement for two doctors' signatures in these circumstances? In cases of untimely and unexpected death, which cause supreme shock and loss to a family, will he confirm that the present arrangement involving two doctors will continue for the foreseeable future?

John Healey: We wish to operate a system that causes the minimum distress to bereaved families at a difficult time, while ensuring that the right kind of checks are carried out when the registration of a death takes place. I encourage the hon. Lady to join the all-party group on funerals and bereavement if she takes an interest in these affairs. I will look at the question that she has raised, and I will write to her.

Pension Schemes

Andrew Robathan: What his latest estimate is of the number of people who have lost pensions through the collapse of company pension schemes following the entering into receivership of companies.

Stephen Timms: One hundred and twenty-five thousand—and all of them will be entitled to help, thanks to my right hon. Friend's Budget announcement on the financial assistance scheme.

Andrew Robathan: Will the Minister confirm, or categorically deny—he may confer—that when referring to the 125,000 extremely unfortunate people who have lost the prospect of a secure and prosperous old age through the collapse of their pensions, the Chancellor said, with his usual compassion, "These are not our people"?

Gordon Brown: I never said that at all.

Stephen Timms: No, that certainly was not said. Those people have suffered an appalling loss, and every Member of the House will have met people who have been in that position. Certainly no one on this side has made any such remark. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the expansion of the financial assistance scheme that my right hon. Friend has announced. That will mean that people will get 80 per cent. of the pension that they were expecting to get at 65.

Andrew Love: I know that my right hon. Friend will welcome the strengthening of company pension schemes over the past couple of years. With many companies now making record profits, what steps is he taking to persuade them to divert more of those profits into their company pension schemes?

Stephen Timms: It is certainly welcome that we have seen a big increase in employer contributions to pension schemes. Under Tory tax rules, companies were encouraged to take pension holidays and, in far too many cases, not to contribute to their schemes at all. One of the most important steps that we have taken to build confidence was to introduce the Pension Protection Fund, which is boosting confidence in pension savings. It is a scandal that although the US equivalent of that fund was in place by 1979, for 18 years the Tory Government did nothing to protect pensions. However, the fund is now in place.

David Gauke: Perhaps the Chief Secretary would care to answer the question that the Economic Secretary did not answer earlier. According to independent experts, the abolition of dividend tax credits in 1997 has cost pension funds a minimum of £100 billion. What assessment has the Treasury made of this? Does it disagree with that figure, and if so, what is the figure?

Stephen Timms: I certainly do not agree with that figure. As my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary said earlier, pension fund assets have risen. They actually rose immediately after that announcement. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman look at the assessment made last year by the Pensions Policy Institute, which came up with a figure a great deal lower than the one usually cited by the Conservatives.

Andrew Miller: The workers at H. H. Robertson in my constituency are extremely grateful for the increases in the financial assistance scheme introduced in the Budget. Their pension scheme collapsed under the previous Conservative Government, partly because of the practices of that Administration. Will my right hon. Friend have a word with the usual channels to ensure that the regulatory changes necessary to bring about those Budget increases are brought before the House at the earliest opportunity? My constituents, whose scheme collapsed in 1996, are now getting elderly, and the small amounts of money that some of them get from their pension scheme are very important to their economic well-being.

Stephen Timms: I agree with my hon. Friend. The matter is urgent, and I shall ensure that his concern is passed on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

Identity Cards

Crispin Blunt: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on a contingency budget to underwrite possible overruns in the costs of the identity card programme; and if he will make a statement.

Stephen Timms: The arrangements for funding the identity cards scheme were agreed in November 2003. Costs will be met from existing departmental budgets, and from charges.

Crispin Blunt: It is rather alarming that the Chancellor and the Home Secretary have not had discussions about such an enormous issue. Perhaps the Chancellor's famous inability to get on with Home Secretaries might be an explanation. The London School of Economics estimates that the cost of the identity cards scheme could run to £20 billion—four times the current projected cost—which will punch an enormous hole in the Home Office budget, creating a serious threat to the United Kingdom in terms of the Home Office's inability to protect our country from terrorism. Is it not about time that proper contingency arrangements were made, as this massive IT scheme is being administered by the Home Office, and we cannot expect it to run to budget?

Stephen Timms: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The project will be well planned and taken forward in partnership with private sector suppliers. The threat to the security of our country comes not from that source but from his right hon. and hon. Friends' refusal to match our spending commitments in that crucial area.

Mark Hoban: Clearly this is a good day to bury bad news, and that is why the report on the cost of the ID cards scheme has been published today, nearly a month late and in breach of the law. In an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), the Chief Secretary said that despite the fact that the Cabinet backed ID cards, the Treasury had yet to approve the expenditure. Has approval now been given—or, once the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary are out of the way, will the Chancellor follow our advice and scrap the scheme that he once backed?

Stephen Timms: The procedure being followed in this case is precisely the same as with other major projects of this kind. Before substantive procurement begins, Treasury approval needs to be given, and it will be.

HM Revenue and Customs

Andrew George: What plans he has for the provision of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs offices in rural areas.

John Healey: As the hon. Gentleman knows, HMRC is carrying out a series of regional reviews of all its office accommodation. It has more than it needs at present, and far more than it will need in the future. Every review will involve detailed consideration and an impact assessment of any proposed closure, and that will take account of the impact on staff, local areas and the local community.

Andrew George: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for that response, but I am sure that the whole House will be interested in any calculations and assessments that Ministers have made of the impact of staff reductions on recoverable tax. Given his remarks, will he emphasise the extent to which the Government will satisfy concerns in constituencies such as mine, which includes west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, that the true socio-economic impacts should be taken into account, and the local community should be fully and properly consulted before final proposals are brought forward?

John Healey: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. If there are proposals to close offices in Cornwall as part of the review, which is unlikely to kick off in full until next year, full consultation will take place among staff, with local communities also involved, and there will be a full impact assessment on the local economy and the local area. We will take into account the responses that we get during the consultation. That is an important part of the process, and the hon. Gentleman might like to look at our revised proposals for central London, which were heavily influenced by the responses during the consultation period.

Bob Laxton: May I tell my hon. Friend that there is already anger and concern in my constituency and the whole of Derby about the prospect of 430 staff being moved down the road to Nottingham—well over an hour's journey? That does not make financial or economic sense, and it certainly does not make environmental sense. It is already clear that the move should not take place. In relation to that specific case, will he consider not going ahead with the proposed moves?

John Healey: No decision on the closure of any offices will be made before Ministers have looked carefully at the results of the consultation and the assessments, and we will do that in the case of my hon. Friend's area. The representations that he and other Members have made will be among the matters that we will consider. At present, however, HMRC has about 40 per cent. more office accommodation than it needs, and taxpayers expect us to use their money in the most efficient way to deliver good services.

Hywel Williams: What assurance can the Minister give about the continuation of the Welsh language helpline, which for many years has been run from Porthmadog in my constituency? It may now be moved to Cardiff, where all employers report intense difficulties in recruiting Welsh speakers in the first place. Can the Minister reassure us that the line will continue to be run properly, from Porthmadog?

John Healey: Concerns and questions about the Welsh language helpline will be considered as part of the review of the office and the location of services in the hon. Gentleman's area, but I can tell him this. We have given a clear commitment that in each and every case, an inquiry centre where taxpayers seek face-to-face advice will remain in its current location or, if necessary, move to another location in the same locality.

Fiscal Rules

Andrew Slaughter: What assessment he has made of the effect of his fiscal rules on the economy.

John Healey: During the last decade the introduction of strict fiscal rules has been an important part of the United Kingdom's macro-economic policy framework, which has delivered higher growth, lower inflation, more jobs and greater stability than existed in the years before Britain had a Labour Government.

Andrew Slaughter: I am grateful for that answer. I am also grateful for the consequences of the Government's policy, which include the hundreds of millions of pounds being invested in my constituency. Two examples are the building schools for the future investment and the investment in Hammersmith hospital, which is bidding to become the first academic health science centre in the country. What, however, is my hon. Friend's estimate of the prospect of that investment continuing if a third fiscal rule is adopted?

John Healey: We have two central fiscal rules which have played a big part in the fact that the level of stability, growth and jobs has been higher over the past decade than ever before. The third fiscal rule that some have proposed would inevitably lead to deep public service investment cuts, amounting to more than £20 billion in the current year alone.

Peter Tapsell: If, as he hopes, the Minister's right hon. Friend the Chancellor becomes First Lord of the Treasury, will the Minister—who, I am sure, will remain a member of his right hon. Friend's team—urge on him that when helping to determine the Government's future fiscal policies, he should agree with President-elect Sarkozy's strong belief in the importance of retaining large national gold reserves, and with his fierce criticisms of the incompetent behaviour of the independent European Central Bank?

John Healey: We will continue to make such decisions in the very best interests of the United Kingdom, as we have done in the past.

Identity Cards

Damian Green: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on funding for the identity cards project; and if he will make a statement.

Stephen Timms: There have been no recent discussions. As I told the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) a moment ago, the position remains as agreed in November 2003 and confirmed in the House in October 2005.

Damian Green: The Chief Secretary gave the House a laugh a few minutes ago by talking about well-run Home Office IT projects. Perhaps he should read the startlingly honest remarks of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe)—the prisons Minister—who told me last week in a written answer:
	"These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing."—[ Official Report, 30 April 2007; Vol. 459, c. 1421W.]
	If the Home Office admits that it cannot cope with processing 80,000 prisoners, what hope has the Chief Secretary? Why is he wasting billions of pounds of taxpayers' money on trying to record the details of 60 million British citizens?

Stephen Timms: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen to the views of Lord Stevens, who is advising his party on these matters and who, as the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday, has acknowledged the absolute benefits of an identity card scheme. He may well find that he, along with his hon. Friend, must rethink his position.

Pension Funds

Ann Winterton: What the Treasury's most recent estimate is of the cost to pension funds of the abolition of dividend tax relief in 1997.

Edward Balls: As I told the hon. Lady and her colleagues a few moments ago, we took that action to address the historical problems of under-investment and short-termism which had held back the British economy, and following that, the assets of pension funds in our country rose.

Ann Winterton: The Economic Secretary has not replied to the simple question posed earlier: exactly how much? Does he recall the dire warnings given to the Chancellor, which were put into the public domain only after a two-year campaign by  The Times? Those warnings highlighted the groups of people who would be adversely affected by the abolition of direct tax relief, and said that the lower-paid would be worse off under the new rules, that pensioners due to retire would lose out immediately, and that businesses would struggle to adjust to the change. Will the Economic Secretary apologise to those groups?

Edward Balls: As I said a moment ago, that decision also involved the recycling of revenues back to pension funds and investors through corporation tax and other tax cuts. Some people feared that the stock market would fall in 1997; in fact, it rose. Some people feared that investment might go down; in fact, it went up. Some people claimed that pensionable assets would decrease in value; in fact, they went up. However, if Opposition Members think that that was the wrong decision, why will they not make a commitment to reverse it? The shadow pensions Minister has made that commitment, but the shadow Chancellor cannot tell us whether he agrees with the shadow pensions Minister or not. Until that is cleared up, there will be no clarity on this issue.

Mr. Speaker: On Tuesday, I paid tribute to Speaker Weatherill on behalf of the House. Lady Weatherill has told me how touched she has been by the generous support given to her by Members and staff of the House. Immediately after business questions, I shall call those Members who wish to pay their tribute to Speaker Weatherill.

Business of the House

Theresa May: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?

Jack Straw: May I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity that you have given the House to pay tribute after business questions to the memory of Lord Weatherill?
	The business of the House for the week commencing 14 May will be:
	Monday 14 May—Second Reading of the Concessionary Bus Travel Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 15 May—Opposition day [11th allotted day]. There will be a debate entitled "Parliamentary Approval for Participation in Armed Conflict" on an Opposition motion.
	Wednesday 16 May—Motion relating to the home information pack regulations, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill.
	Thursday 17 May—Remaining stages of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill (day one).
	Friday 18 May—Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 21 May will be:
	Monday 21 May—Second Reading of the Further Education and Training Bill [ Lords].
	Tuesday 22 May—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill.
	Wednesday 23 May—Opposition day [12th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 24 May—Motion on the Whitsun recess Adjournment.
	Friday 25 May—The House will not be sitting.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the future business.
	Last week, as Ministers celebrated the anniversary of their Government and the Prime Minister boasted about his record, the people gave them—in the words of the Secretary of State for Wales—"a bad kicking". The Labour party lost 500 council seats. The Liberal Democrats lost 250 seats. The Conservatives gained 900.
	Last week's elections also gave us yet another of the Chancellor's Macavity moments, although beforehand he had said that the people would be "voting on all" the Government. Does the Leader of the House agree, and as he is the Chancellor's campaign manager, will he make a statement on his behalf?
	When everybody's attention was on last week's election results, the Government were up to their old tricks and quietly buried 12 bad news stories. They were not about minor and petty issues. We learned that the Chancellor spent £5 million on legal fees to recover tax credit overpayments from vulnerable, hard-up families. The NHS spent nearly £500 million on clinical negligence claims last year, and the Chancellor's friends at Opinion Leader Research won a £150,000 contract to organise a one-day seminar. Can we have a debate on honesty in government?
	I was going to ask the Leader of the House to confirm that no bad news would be deliberately buried today but I understand that it is too late, because the Government have already started by burying the identity cards report. Perhaps he will tell us what other bad news is being announced today.
	As I said, the Chancellor spent £5 million trying to recover overpaid tax credits, but according to the Public Accounts Committee £557 million in tax credits has already been written off and a further £1.4 billion is likely to be lost. The Committee says that that was caused by
	"the highest rates of error and fraud in central government",
	and that
	"the design of the internet system for tax credits was deficient from the outset".
	Can we therefore have a debate on the Chancellor's mismanagement of the tax credit system?
	I have previously asked for a debate on the creation of the Ministry of Justice—a decision that two former Home Secretaries called "batty" and "balkanisation". When the Leader of the House was Home Secretary, he did not think that it was too much for one person, so may we have that debate? The Lord Chancellor—the new Secretary of State for Justice—wants to reduce the number of custodial sentences to deal with prison overcrowding. Given that the Leader of the House might be Home Secretary again soon, can he make a statement confirming that sentencing policy must be based on the severity of the crime, and nothing else?
	As Leader of the House, the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the reform of party funding. While he is still in the job, will he confirm that, as proposed by Sir Hayden Phillips, the Government will not legislate on party funding without cross-party agreement?
	There is another post that will be vacant when the Chancellor becomes Prime Minister. The Health Secretary has refused to resign—but I am sure that she will be sacked soon enough. One in six hospital trusts treats patients in mixed-sex—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been patient with the right hon. Lady. She must talk about the business of next week, but she is not doing so. Perhaps she can do that.

Theresa May: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was going to ask for a debate next week on boom and bust in the national health service, given the figures released today showing that one in six hospital trusts has mixed-sex wards. Moreover, cancer survival rates in this country are the worst in Europe, and there are 10,000 fewer nurses and health visitors than last year. A debate on boom and bust in the health service would give us an opportunity to set out the Government's failure in all those respects.
	All these issues show that, whatever the Chancellor spins about providing a new start, he has been the No.2 in this Government for 10 years. Spin, crises in sentencing policy, boom and bust in the NHS—it is not just the Prime Minister's record, but the Chancellor's, too.

Jack Straw: [Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. Speaker—I missed the fact that the right hon. Lady had finished; I do apologise. I was waiting for the finale.
	As the right hon. Lady knows, I spent 18 years in opposition and I am looking forward to her spending —[Interruption.] I therefore have avuncular, comradely advice for the Opposition. They should not believe their own propaganda when it comes to local election results. We had a difficult day last Thursday and Friday—that is obvious—and the Conservative party had a slightly better day. In my Blackburn constituency, however, the popular vote was up and we gained a seat.  [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) can speak for himself about what happened in his constituency. If I were a hard-headed Conservative business manager looking at the next election, I would not regard the recent results as anything like the breakthrough that the Conservatives needed. They certainly did not parallel the situation that we achieved in 1995—or, indeed, in 1990, when, sadly, we went on to lose the following election.
	On the right hon. Lady's question about the expenditure of £500 million on clinical negligence claims, all of us regret the fact that such large sums are paid out in respect of clinical negligence, but I would be interested to know whether she will make proposals to cut that sum in her manifesto at the next election. Sums paid out for clinical negligence have been rising because of an increase in patients' rights and a greater readiness by courts to award high amounts of damages. If she is saying that in future patients will not have those rights or that the sums paid out —[ Interruption. ] The right hon. Lady is wittering on about honesty in Government, but I do not understand what point she is trying to make.
	On the ID cards report, I was asked about it two weeks ago as it was slightly overdue. As ever, I took the issue up and we announced it today on the Order Paper. The right hon. Lady witters on about this, but one of the many differences between this Government and the Government whom she supported is that we have greatly increased the accountability of Ministers in large ways and small. One of the things that I had introduced was proper notice for written ministerial statements. One used to have to find planted parliamentary questions buried in the Order Paper, which were sometimes not there at all—

Andrew MacKinlay: And we do not do that now.

Jack Straw: No, we have stopped that because it was wrong. Written statements now appear in the Order Paper.
	I note the right hon. Lady's request for a debate on the Ministry of Justice, including sentencing policy, and I will follow that up. In respect of party funding, she should read what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and I said about any legislation. I hope that we are able to reach all-party agreement in the talks that are due to start next Tuesday, but before she starts looking at the mote in our eye, she should examine the beam in the Conservatives' eye. They never sought all-party agreement on party funding. The only legislation that they sought to introduce on party funding was against the Labour party's funding and also protected their funding. The legislation that I introduced in 2000 was done on an all-party basis. I want all-party agreement, but that depends on all parties to the talks being ready to be fair in respect of their opponent parties. I look forward to that happening in respect of the Conservative party—for the first time in its history, going back to the Osborne judgment in 1909.

David Winnick: As far as business for Friday 18 May is concerned, is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are deeply disappointed that party managers are actively encouraging Members to come in to support the private Member's Bill that would exempt Parliament from the freedom of information legislation? Having legislated for everyone else and rightly so—we should be proud that as a Labour Government we did that—why should we exempt ourselves? Why are the party managers so determined that we should do so? If the Bill is carried—and it probably will be because of the active canvassing—Parliament will be accused of hypocrisy, and rightly so.

Jack Straw: How Parliament is treated remains to be considered and the Bill will be decided on a free vote by Members. It is important that the House has an opportunity to make the decision. As someone who introduced the original freedom of information legislation in 1999, I can tell my hon. Friend that the original intention—which had all-party agreement—was that Parliament should be exempted from it, as is the case in respect of many other Parliaments, because parliamentarians can use other means to extract information.
	I leave aside the issue of Members' expenses and Mr. Speaker has already made clear his intention that the publication scheme will continue regardless of any exemption. That must be right. Indeed, the publication scheme may need to be strengthened. It is right, in this respect as in every other, to review the progress of legislation. It was never an anticipation of this or the other place that a consequence of the freedom of information legislation would be that confidential Members' correspondence on behalf of constituents would be at risk of publication. That was never, ever the intention. Publication of such matters would drive a coach and horses through the relationship that we have with constituents. It is all very well for some people to say that there are some exemptions, but the truth is that the way that some journalists and the Information Commissioner are acting means that that intention is not being met in practice by the Information Committee.

David Heath: Last Tuesday, the Secretary of State for Scotland made a statement about the failure of electoral arrangements in Scotland. May we have a similar statement about electoral arrangements in England? It should deal with the isolated but quite serious instances of alleged fraud—to which the only response from all parties must be zero tolerance—and the mismanagement in many areas that resulted in postal and proxy votes not being sent in time, and in polling cards sometimes being sent in multiple numbers or not at all. Such a statement will be needed sooner rather than later, given that we will surely have a general election following the forthcoming change in the Administration.
	The Finance Bill is in Committee at the moment. Will the Leader of the House look into why that Bill, uniquely among public Bills, is not open to evidence sessions? Surely it is most important that those who are affected by the Finance Bill should be able to give evidence so as to facilitate an informed debate, but it is the one Bill for which we cannot have evidence sessions.
	May we have a debate on legal aid? The Government are precipitating a crisis of their own making in what is one of the key fundamentals of the welfare state. That crisis was precipitated by the report from Lord Carter—who, for heaven's sake, has now been asked to review our prison arrangements. It is essential that we get an opportunity to have a debate on the matter and, I hope, to forestall a very serious result arising from the changes to legal aid.
	I was surprised that the Leader of the House was not able today to give us a date for a statement on the future of post offices. That is a matter that affects the constituencies of all hon. Members, and I had hoped that we might have a clear date for the Government's response.
	Lastly, today we have finally learned the date of departure of the man who has characterised and epitomised the Labour Government for a decade. Therefore, can we have a debate on what exactly is the role of the Deputy Prime Minister, and why he costs so much?

Jack Straw: The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked first for a statement on electoral fraud. All parties take very seriously any allegations of electoral fraud or mismanagement, and I shall certainly raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and invite him to consider making either a written or an oral statement. It is important that we learn the lessons in respect of fraud, which is isolated but which needs to be investigated, and any failures in the administration of postal voting.
	The hon. Gentleman's question about the Finance Bill is a rather late entry. We introduced changes to the public Bill procedure to provide evidence sessions for Bills that are programmed. I do not think that there is any objection in principle to having evidence sessions for the Finance Bill, but they would have to be programmed and I am not sure that the House would find that acceptable. Moreover, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the parliamentary proceedings on the Finance Bill, he will see that they are more extensive than those on almost any other Bill. The four days of debate on the Budget deal mainly with the legislative proposals that it contains. They are followed by one day for Second Reading of the Finance Bill and two days for Committee stage on the Floor of the House, after which the Bill goes upstairs. Whatever else one might say about proceedings on the Finance Bill, one cannot argue that it is not examined fully. It is examined very extensively, and although a few years have passed since I sat on Finance Bill Committees, my experience is that hon. Members of all parties are very well briefed and that some forensic examination is carried out.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about legal aid, which was the subject of a debate in Westminster Hall in January. I am aware that there are some concerns about the future of legal aid, but the hon. Gentleman will know that its budget has been vastly increased in recent years, with no commensurate increase in court proceedings. The Government must take account of the fact that money is limited—I know that Liberal Democrats do not have to bother about such matters—and make choices accordingly.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the Deputy Prime Minister, but I was not quite sure what his point was. The role of Deputy Prime Minister goes back to a time way before this Administration.

Emily Thornberry: Given the continuing, unfolding tragedy in Darfur, where latest estimates are that more than 200,000 people have been killed and 2 million people have been displaced, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the Floor of the House about that tragedy?

Jack Straw: The answer is yes. I think the whole House shares my hon. Friend's profound concern about the deteriorating situation in Darfur. Although the business is still provisional, we plan to hold that debate in the week beginning 4 June—the week we come back after the Whitsun recess.

Henry Bellingham: The Leader of the House will be aware that I represent a large number of constituents who are members of the Albert Fisher pension scheme and have obviously suffered a huge amount of grief over the past five years. Those people have been seeking the advice of the pensions expert, Ros Altmann, so will the right hon. Gentleman clear up some confusion? Did she advise No. 10 and the Government on their pension policy over the past five years?

Jack Straw: My deputy tells me that she was never a formal adviser. All of us have constituents who have suffered from the collapse of private pension schemes, but I have personally looked closely at the evidence behind their collapse and there is much independent evidence—I am happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with details—that suggests that the impact of the abolition of advance corporation tax on the later collapse of the schemes was remarkably small. Their collapse was principally to do with other reasons.

Diane Abbott: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1303 on the effect of legal aid reform on black and minority ethnic solicitors?
	 [That this House notes the speech by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs Vera Baird QC to the Black Solicitors Network in June 2006; further notes that she told her audience that black and minority ethnic solicitors should regard her as an ally in the fight 'to make the legal profession one that represents Britain in the 21st century'; further notes that black and minority ethnic solicitors are more likely to undertake legal aid work than the profession as a whole and that they are more likely to be small firms; further notes that one of the intended consequences of the Government's legal aid reform is to cut the number of small firms and encourage consolidation and that the Black Solicitors Network now estimates that up to two thirds of black and minority ethnic law firms will have to close as a result of the Government's legal aid reforms; believes that such an outcome would be bad for the cause of encouraging black entrepreneurship and for the cause of encouraging diversity in the legal profession and above all bad for clients; and urges the Government to look at this issue as a matter of urgency.]
	The whole House applauds the Government's wish to get value for money in legal aid spending, but it is becoming increasingly clear that among other flaws the legal aid reform will decimate black and minority ethnic solicitors who are more likely to be in new or small firms, or more likely to be dependent on legal aid work. Will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate on the Floor of the House on the excellent report of the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs on legal aid reform, which particularly emphasises its worrying effects on black and Asian solicitors?

Jack Straw: I know that my hon. Friend held a short debate on that yesterday in Westminster Hall. I understand the concern she shares and, going back to my time as Home Secretary and my establishment of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, I know how important it was to getting the inquiry established that there were minority ethnic firms of solicitors who could represent the family during their campaign in the mid-1990s for me—as it happened—to set up the inquiry in 1997. I understand my hon. Friend's concern and I am glad that she, in turn, recognises the pressures on the legal aid budget. I shall certainly consider a longer debate, either in Westminster Hall or on the Floor of the House, and in addition I will ensure that her concerns are made known to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor.

Greg Knight: Is the Leader of the House aware that each year hundreds of people are needlessly killed and scores more injured all because we go through the ridiculous ritual of putting our clocks back every autumn? May we, therefore, have a debate on the benefits of extending British summer time throughout the year? [Hon. Members: "Definitely not."] If the Leader of the House cannot give us that debate next week, will he at least tell the House today why the Government appear to be wedded to the current obsolete and unsatisfactory practice?

Jack Straw: All I say to the right hon. Gentleman is that if he were to observe the views of his colleagues he would say that it is not a Government issue, but one on which there is much to be said on both sides. All of us greatly regret road and other deaths, but to attribute them to the change from summer time to Greenwich mean time is questionable, but I wish the right hon. Gentleman luck in obtaining a debate on the matter.

Peter Soulsby: I think that the Leader of the House is aware of the proposals of Post Office Ltd to close 70 of its Crown post offices in our town and city centres and also of the proposal to replace them with outposts in nearby branches of WH Smith, and in the case of Leicester in the basement of a nearby branch of WH Smith—much smaller premises. As Post Office Ltd is not allowing debate on the principle of those moves, may we have a debate here about that serious change in the provision of vital public services so that the considerable public concern that has been expressed can be reflected in the Chamber?

Jack Straw: I shall certainly consider that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will make a statement on the issue in due course. In my case, the Crown post office building in Blackburn is not an object of beauty—unlike that in King's Lynn—so I have never been given a print of it. The Crown post office was moved to one run by a private contractor. I am afraid that the public meeting I attended attracted only 50 people, so the move came into force without incident. Although it is hard, the fact of the matter is that the Post Office is having to adjust to major external changes in people's habits; above all, the internet facilities that have greatly reduced post office business. There is a lot of external competition as well.

Angus Robertson: Following the Scottish Parliament election results and the victory of the Scottish National party, may we have a debate in Government time so that we can learn how they will work constructively with the incoming SNP Administration? Will the Leader of the House clarify the Government's position, bearing in mind the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement that he will not work with the SNP? Perhaps the Leader of the House would like to take this opportunity to be the first Minister graciously to commend and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).  [ Interruption. ]

Jack Straw: The Opposition Whip says, "Don't be tempted", but I always congratulate everybody who wins an elected position in any forum because that is the essence of our democracy. That can be taken in the spirit in which it is intended— [ Laughter. ]—generously.
	On the wider issue, it is of course the duty of the British Government to co-operate with all institutions of governance across the country. We have shown that we do so in respect of local government and we shall do so in respect of the devolved Administrations. That is nothing new and it will continue.

Anne Moffat: May we have a debate on the security procedures at airports, especially those of the British Airports Authority, where personal searches have become robust and intrusive? Many of my constituents have complained to me about the process and I have experienced it myself as I travel back and forth. Could we not introduce a system of handheld scanners, such as that in other countries?

Jack Straw: It is an issue about which I have thought a great deal. I understand my hon. Friend's concern and will certainly give consideration to a debate on the matter. However, on the other side, BAA and all other airport operators are under a paramount duty to ensure security—

Theresa May: So are the Government.

Jack Straw: It is also a Government requirement, as the right hon. Lady says. Although the process can be inconvenient, it is inconvenient for everybody, and none of us would forgive the Government or the airport operators if, as a result of changes in procedure, a terrorist got through and passengers' lives were put at risk.

Nicholas Winterton: May I ask the Leader of the House a serious question? Mention has already been made of the freedom of information legislation. Is it not wholly unacceptable that private and confidential correspondence between a Member and a Minister does not remain private and confidential? It should not be released into the public domain. Departments are releasing correspondence from Members, on what they say are legitimate requests, so will the Leader of the House give instructions to all Departments that Members' correspondence with Ministers is private and, if necessary, will he come to the House and make a statement on the matter? I believe that trust and confidentiality between Members and Ministers is at risk unless action is taken immediately.

Jack Straw: I am happy to accede to all the requests that the hon. Gentleman makes. I share his concern. The House of Commons Commission has given consideration to the issue. New guidance has been agreed with the House of Commons and what was then the Department for Constitutional Affairs and is now the Ministry of Justice, advising public authorities on how to handle requests that involve the correspondence of Members of Parliament. I personally accept that certainly the spirit, and in some cases the letter, of the guidance has not been properly followed and that public authorities, including—but not exclusively—Departments have sometimes been too ready to accede to third-party requests for the release of such correspondence without giving the Member of Parliament any say whatever. The issue is not about protecting the amour propre of Members of Parliament; it is about protecting the rights of our constituents to correspond with us in confidence.

Jim Devine: May we have a debate on so-called size zero models?  [ Laughter. ] I am not joining them. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the organisers of London fashion week, who have not followed the lead of the organisers of Madrid fashion week by condemning size zero models? Two models have died recently. Sadly, such women are role models for many teenagers and we have seen a substantial increase in anorexia.

Jack Straw: I will certainly give consideration to that. My hon. Friend puts his point well. As he says, there is no danger that he will drift down that route, but he raises a serious issue. Anorexia nervosa is a terrible disease. The fashion industry has a profound responsibility not to do anything directly or indirectly to encourage young women, in particular, to become anorexic.

Jo Swinson: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 814 on excessive packaging?
	 [ That this House notes with concern the excessive levels of packaging used by manufacturers and retailers, accounting for 4.6 million tonnes of household waste every year and 17 per cent. of the average household food budget; commends the recent campaign against excessive packaging run by the Independent newspaper; and urges supermarkets to reduce where possible packaging on goods sold, encourage the re-use of plastic bags, recycle packaging waste and encourage suppliers to reduce packaging further up the supply chain. ]
	May we have a debate on this important issue? The early-day motion has been signed by 147 Members, so there is clearly concern across the House. At a time when there is concern, controversy and debate among the public about how to deal with our refuse collections, should we not have a debate in the House about how to reduce what goes into bins in the first place?

Jack Straw: I agree with the sentiment that the hon. Lady expresses. The waste strategy report is due out quite shortly and I will look for an opportunity for that matter to be debated.

Tom Clarke: My right hon. Friend will be aware that next Tuesday the Department for International Development, on behalf of the Government, will publish the first ever report to Parliament to arise from the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006. Given that, on Third Reading, when the Act was carried unanimously by the House, there was an overwhelming view that the report should lead to a debate on the Floor of the House, is he in a position to assure us that that important debate will take place? The report covers issues such as the achievement of the 0.7 per cent. gross domestic product target, the millennium development goals, aid effectiveness, and, above all, transparency itself.

Jack Straw: My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the great achievement of the Government over the past 10 years—one of the many achievements of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—in ensuring a huge increase in the resources available to the Department for International Development and ensuring that resources are better targeted. Our record on international development is exemplary and better than the records of any of the other major industrialised countries of the world. As he says, the report is due to be published. We are certainly giving active consideration to whether there can be a debate on the Floor of the House.

George Young: When we get to Question Time for the Ministry of Justice, which has substantial new responsibilities, including prisons, does the Leader of the House agree that the House is entitled to hold to account a Secretary of State who sits in the Cabinet?

Jack Straw: There will be questions on Tuesday in respect of the Ministry of Justice.  [ Interruption. ] May I just say in response to the sedentary intervention that the time allocated for parliamentary questions to the new expanded Ministry should be longer? We are looking at that. On the wider issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I refer to the statements that were made when the original announcement was made in March about a Ministry of Justice. There is an expectation that in due course the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice will sit in this House.

Eric Martlew: May I support my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) in asking for a debate on the takeover by WH Smith of the Crown post offices, including the one in my constituency? I believe that that will be bad for customers, that the facilities provided will be inadequate, and that there will be a cut in the wages of the counter staff and a cut in their conditions. A debate would give the Minister responsible for the Royal Mail the opportunity to defend himself against the charge that he is indifferent to the concerns of hon. Members on the issue.

Jack Straw: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is not remotely indifferent to Members' concerns. It was he who secured hundreds of millions of pounds by way of additional subsidy to ensure that post offices, including those in rural areas, can continue to operate. But none of us is able to resist the changes, not necessarily in our habits, but in the habits of our constituents, and the advance of technology. Of course I understand my hon. Friend's concerns and I will ensure that they are relayed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We will also look for an opportunity to debate the matter.

Mark Lancaster: May we have a debate on houses in multiple occupancy or HMOs? Their impact on constituencies such as mine is considerable. The problem seems to be that dwellings that were built with just two or three bedrooms are being converted to have six or seven bedrooms, with a major impact on parking, antisocial behaviour, noise and nuisance. Local authorities seem powerless to do much about it.

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. I will certainly look for an opportunity for a debate. It may have to be in Westminster Hall. If he wishes to give me more details, I will make sure that they are put before the relevant Secretary of State. There were some improvements to the powers for local authorities under housing legislation about two years ago. The legislation gives local authorities powers better to control and regulate private landlords, who often lie behind houses in multiple occupation. But I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman raises.

Andrew MacKinlay: May I ask for a debate on a sensitive matter? There is never a right time to mention it, but it is a serious constitutional point. I am talking about what happens when a Prime Minister suffers a sudden incapacity or dies. Neither of the two main political parties has adequate arrangements to deal with such circumstances. Is there not a case for institutionalising the post of the Deputy Prime Minister? The Conservative party does not have an elected deputy leader. The Labour party does, but that deputy leader might be out of government. Buckingham Palace would be obliged under the conventions to send for that person to fill the post. It is rather sloppy of our generation that, at a time when the country could be in the middle of an international crisis, we could have uncertainty about who should be in charge of Government if the Prime Minister were incapacitated or suddenly died.

Jack Straw: I was going to observe that there are plenty of hazards of being Prime Minister, but dying in office is a very rare one.

Henry Bellingham: What about Spencer Perceval?

Jack Straw: Yes, but he was shot and the protection arrangements are different now. That was a very long time ago. Our constitutional arrangements, which have allowed for the transfer of power between one Prime Minister and another mid-term on five occasions since the last world war, are perfectly adequate.

Christopher Fraser: Given the enormous financial commitment that the nation is making to the 2012 Olympics, does the Leader of the House agree that we should have a debate in this House on the legacy of the Olympics? Given that not everybody can compete in the events, we want to give a chance to young people and British companies at least to get involved and participate.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the notice he gave me of his question. We had a statement in March, but there has not been a debate on the Floor of the House since the proceedings on the legislation two years ago. I will certainly give consideration to a debate. I cannot promise exactly when it will take place.

Tributes (Speaker Weatherill)

Jack Straw: As I said earlier, I am extremely grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me and many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House the opportunity to express our condolences to Lady Weatherill and to pay tribute to the memory of Jack Weatherill, as so many of us knew him.
	The most important and fundamental role of the House is to hold the Executive to account. The Speaker, above all, is here to protect and enhance the duty of all Members to fulfil that important role and to defend the rights and privileges of individual Members representing their constituents. From the moment that Jack Weatherill took the Speaker's Chair in 1983, he never forgot the duties of the House or the importance of his position in sustaining the democratic process.
	Many of the tributes to and obituaries of Jack Weatherill have highlighted his kindness. He was indeed a kind man, as you and I, Mr. Speaker—we came into the House just four years before he assumed the august office of Speaker—have good reason to remember. Other obituaries have highlighted his professionalism and quick wit. Both were absolutely the case. He was always on top of procedure and Standing Orders—and sometimes, when necessary, individual Members. Many of us who were around at the time will remember receiving the sharp end of his tongue.
	Of all Jack Weatherill's qualities, the one that I wish to emphasise is his courage. In the early and mid-1980s, politics in this country was raw and the divisions between the political parties were bitter. Without television, as all of us who were here at the time will recall, this place could be like a bear pit. The external divisions of British politics ran very deep inside the House. Jack Weatherill had to control the House. He also had to resist the ire of Ministers—I am not making a party point because you also know, Mr. Speaker, that that is a function of all good Speakers—to ensure that the fundamental role of holding the Government to account could be fulfilled and so that Members on both sides of the House could give vent to their anger.
	Jack Weatherill was a traditionalist. He was the last Speaker to wear the full-bottomed wig and while he sometimes used to complain about it, he continued with the tradition. However, he was also very alive to the need to modernise this place. He embraced the idea of television and was the Speaker in the Chair when television was first introduced. Through that, he became the first Speaker to become not just a national but an international figure. He thus enhanced the reputation of the House throughout the world. Although the notices that we receive for our performances in the House probably mark us down compared with our predecessors, the House is still regarded as one of the most vibrant democratic Chambers in the world. For that, we owe a huge debt of gratitude to the pioneering work of Jack Weatherill, who ensured that the introduction of television meant that Members were better behaved and properly reflected the dignity of the House.
	There is much else that I could say about Jack Weatherill, such as his contribution to his party in which he had a distinguished career before he took the Speaker's Chair. In the other place, after he left the Chair, he pursued many great and small causes. I will mention just one such cause, which goes back to what I said about his courage. He had a profound commitment to the sub-continent of India. He had great affection for the place and he was ready to speak up for constituents and those who had made this place their home at a time when doing so was far less popular than it is today.
	We send our condolences to Lady Weatherill and her family. We salute a great Speaker and mourn his loss.

Theresa May: I, too, am grateful for the opportunity to pay tribute to Lord Weatherill.
	As many have already said, Jack Weatherill was not just an esteemed parliamentarian but a true gentleman. He served his country throughout his life. As a soldier during the war, he served in the Dragoon Guards and in the Indian army with the 19th King George V's Own Lancers. It was during his time in India that he learned to speak Urdu. During the 1942 famine, he became a lifelong vegetarian. Later, as we know, he served the constituents of Croydon, North-East from 1964 until 1992, after which he continued to serve his country in the other place. Between his service in the Army and Parliament, he worked as a tailor in the family business that his father established.
	Jack Weatherill was, in many senses, the embodiment of the changes to the world, politics and Parliament that took place in the last century. As the Leader of the House mentioned, he was the last Speaker to wear the traditional wig and the first Speaker to see television cameras in the Chamber. At a time when we all talk a great deal about connecting Parliament with the public, we would do well to remember Jack Weatherill, who was determined that Parliament should be as relevant to the real world as possible. He said that it was his absolute intention to ensure that everything that went on in our nation was exposed in our House. That is not a bad motto for us all to remember today.
	I am sure that many hon. Members are familiar with the story that shortly after Jack Weatherill was elected, he overheard an elderly grandee complain, "My God, what is this place coming to? They've got my tailor in here." However, he was very proud of his background. As you said in your tribute on Tuesday, Mr. Speaker, he used to carry a thimble with him to keep him humble, to use his words. That was a mark of the man.
	Jack Weatherill was indeed a fine parliamentarian. As Speaker, he was a resolute defender of the rights of Back Benchers, which was not always easy in the face of his own party in government. However, in all that he did, he won respect and high regard from Members on both sides of the House. He was a devoted churchman and a loyal family man. I am sure that the whole House will want to send condolences to his wife, Lyn, and his three children and seven grandchildren. We will all remember Lord Weatherill as a great parliamentarian, a fine Speaker and a gentleman who spent his life serving his country.

Alan Williams: I speak not only on my own behalf but, I hope, on behalf of many of Jack's ex-colleagues who would wish they could be here today to express their sympathies to the family. Like them, I remember him as an outstanding Speaker and, above all, as a delightful man.
	Jack and I came into the House together in 1964, although we were each unaware of the other for a long time. Although I discovered this only the other day, we both ascended—if that is the appropriate term—to the Front Bench in 1967. I was a little green Under-Secretary in the Department of Economic Affairs, while he was a junior Whip. It is often the case that people can be together in the House for years and know each other to say hello without their paths crossing politically for long time. That was the case with Jack and me.
	Our paths coincided, rather than collided, on an occasion that I will never forget, although I will come to that in a moment. I used to do the mischief job of trying to mobilise what the Leader of the House called the rather rowdy element on the Opposition Benches. Our job was to try to claim prime time. It was a matter not of being rowdy but of trying to use the procedures of the House of Commons to secure the time straight after questions when everyone was still in the Gallery. We used points of order and got people to table private notice questions that were backed up with requests under Standing Order No. 24. We were using the procedures of the House to try to seize the time when we still had a press audience. At the time, he was the Speaker and I was doing a massively less reputable job in the House, but I will never forget the time when our paths coincided.
	Those of us who were here at the time will remember that Mrs. Thatcher did not often come to the House to take part in debates, although she took part in Prime Minister's questions. On one very big occasion—it was a debate on the Wright affair, which was a great scandal that had run for a long time in the press—the Chamber was absolutely packed. It was so packed that when I came in, slightly late, I could not even get on to the Front Bench; I had to sit on the steps between the Front Bench and the Bench behind it. During Mrs. Thatcher's presentation, various requests for information were made, and she insisted that she could not answer because there was a case under way in Australia and the matter was therefore sub judice. I was puzzled, because that did not quite fit in with my understanding of the rule, but I was not sure about the matter. Even Roy Jenkins, who was speaking from the third row below the gangway, did not challenge her, so I thought that I had better check.
	I left through the Door of the Chamber and came down to the Table, where the ever-helpful Clerks confirmed my suspicion. I came back, muscled my way on to the Front Bench and got up and made a point of order, in which I asked Jack, as Speaker, to rule on whether the sub judice rule applied to a case in the Australian courts, or whether it applied only in this country. He confirmed that the rule was that it applied only in this country. The Prime Minister made no secret of the fact that she rather disagreed with him and she set about him, to some extent, so I jumped up on another point of order and said, "Isn't it normal to apologise when you've misled the House?"
	Some time later, I met Jack in connection with another issue—in fact, it related to the decision to move the time when points of order could be raised from straight after questions to after statements. In our conversation, I apologised for the grief that I had caused him on that day, and a broad grin broke out on his face. He said, "Don't worry, I used to do the same job when I was in the Whips Office." He used to mobilise the Maxwell-Hyslops of the House—not many of us will remember him—and other Conservative Members who were discontented with the then Labour Government. Jack said, "In fact, when I did that job, I had a nickname." He told me the nickname, but unfortunately the proprieties of the House will not allow me to repeat it, and if I tried to, you would stop me, Mr. Speaker. If anyone wants to know it, the obituary in the online edition of  The Independent carries it.
	Jack was proud of the role that he played on behalf of the Opposition. In a way—I have said this on previous occasions, and not in a joking way—it would be a good thing if every Member could serve in opposition as soon as they came into the House, because it is in opposition that Members learn what accountability is about and why Ministers need to be brought to book. Today, I remember a fair, kind and humorous man, but also a very firm Speaker. My sympathies and thoughts, and those of so many of his ex-colleagues, are with his family today.

David Heath: Like the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), and indeed the majority of Members of the House, I am afraid that I did not have the privilege of serving in this House while Lord Weatherill was Speaker, but I had the great privilege of meeting him, in rather odd circumstances, soon after I was elected. We were both at Farleigh Hungerford castle in my constituency on a cold December evening to celebrate the life of Sir Thomas Hungerford, the first recorded Speaker of the House. I suspect that he was a very good Speaker of a very bad Parliament. Indeed, it was dubbed "the bad Parliament" because it introduced cash for favours and the poll tax, so it was very bad indeed.
	When I met Lord Weatherill on that bitterly cold night in Farleigh Hungerford castle's chapel, which had not been heated since the 14th century, and which was therefore not the most congenial of surroundings, what struck me first was his stoicism under the circumstances. He also gave the impression of being a kind, courteous man. He was interested in me as a new Member in a way that he had no need to be. He also struck me as a punctilious parliamentarian. He did not have to be in Somerset on a cold December evening, but he was there because, as a former Speaker of the House, he wanted to pay tribute to the first Speaker of the House, and he was there as a parliamentarian. The tributes that have been paid to Lord Weatherill all mention his fairness and assiduity in the post of Speaker and his preparedness to ensure that the people who make life difficult for Speakers, for Governments and for the Opposition were properly heard. That is the sort of testament that any Speaker would wish to hear. We Liberal Democrats send our condolences to Lady Weatherill, and we mourn the loss of a great parliamentarian.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: The office of Speaker of the House is never easy to fulfil, and over the centuries people have interpreted the role in entirely different ways. The tributes to Jack Weatherill have rather hidden one aspect of him that was of enormous importance, and that was his intelligence. He was an enormously warm and witty man and he was fun to know. When he left us for the House of Lords, he took with him his strong commitment to the essential qualities of a Parliament, which include the need always to represent the views of the whole community. Sometimes we underestimate the strains and the pressures that we put on the Speaker.
	I was honoured and delighted to know Jack Weatherill and to have the chance to work with him, not least because he interpreted the multicultural and multi-political views of our society in a very civilised way. His civility was very important. He was so cultured and so interested in everything that we did; he was a delight. He took enormous pleasure in his family—in his marvellous wife, who made it possible for him to be such a good Speaker, and in his grandchildren and children. I remember him talking, in his last Christmas in the Commons, of the debate that the family had had about whether they should remain in the palace for that Christmas holiday. His final decision was that it had been such a pleasure and a delight to be Speaker that he wanted the opportunity to have the family with him in the palace for his last Christmas in office.
	What Jack Weatherill did in the other place was representative of him. He took on the role of keeping the independent Members of the House of Lords involved in the work of the House and able to express their views. To me that was a demonstration of the man. He was a remarkable man; occasionally he masqueraded as a very ordinary man, although only idiots would have been taken in. His role in both Houses of Parliament, and among the population as a whole, was to do that very British thing of moving us forward while appearing to remain stationary, and only Jack could have done it. He will be very much missed, and I have the greatest admiration for what Jack Weatherill accomplished.

Nicholas Winterton: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in what she has said. To me, Jack Weatherill was, above all, a friend. Mr. Speaker, as you said in your tribute earlier this week, he was an excellent Speaker. He got to the Speaker's Chair not because he was the chosen representative of his party but because he was the person chosen by the House. I think that that indicates just how favourably Members from all parts of the House regarded Jack Weatherill. He was, as many of us know, deputy Chief Whip. He was, as you were, too, Sir, the Chairman of Ways and Means before achieving the highest office available to the House—that of Speaker.
	Jack Weatherill was primarily a friend. He invited me to become a member of the Chairmen's Panel—a job that I have done ever since 1986, and which is a huge privilege as it enables people to serve the House and the institution of Parliament. He was a very personable man. I remember speaking in a debate on textiles. He was in the Chair, and during the debate, he arranged for a note to be passed to me. It just said:
	"Nicholas, well spoken. You spoke from the heart and I agreed with you. I am pleased I was in the Chair when you spoke."
	I think that that shows the personable nature of his relationship with Members from all parties in the House of Commons. He shared another common interest with me. He was very senior to me, and served for longer, but we were both members of a cavalry regiment. He greatly enjoyed his time in the Army, particularly, as has already been mentioned, his period in the Indian army. It is not wrong to say that he was indeed in every way an officer and a gentleman.
	When Lord Weatherill left the House, he did me a great favour. He was involved with three City livery companies. I invited him to be my guest of honour at a major livery dinner of the Worshipful Company of Weavers of which, between 1997 and 1998, I was upper bailiff. He attended that occasion, and it indicates Jack Weatherill's loyalty to those organisations with which he was involved. He was a man who was greatly liked. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, he had a wonderful wife, Lyn. She was a wonderful tennis player, and I remember many games on the tennis courts of Westminster school in Vincent square. Jack himself did not come and play, but Lyn was a wonderful tennis player and a huge supporter of Jack during his time as Speaker.
	I hope, Sir, that I am permitted to say that Jack Weatherill was hugely kind to my wife, our elder boy and myself. The reception after the christening of our first grandchild was held in the Palace of Westminster in Mr. Speaker's State Apartments. Perhaps I should not have said that, as it may open the door to many approaches to you, Mr. Speaker, and I do not seek to do that. It shows the fact—it has not really been said so far in the tributes—that Jack was a real family man. Perhaps above all, to Jack Weatherill, whom we mourn—we send our condolences to Lyn, his wife and to his two sons and daughter—the House of Commons was his family; latterly the same was true of Parliament. He stood up for it. He was a great Speaker, and he will long be remembered.

Gerald Kaufman: I was fortunate in sharing some characteristics with Jack Weatherill. I shared with him the honour of having had conferred on me by the President of Pakistan the Hilal-e-Pakistan. Jack Weatherill was extremely proud of the place that he held in Pakistan and in the Indian sub-continent. He was held in the highest esteem in Pakistan, and he will be much mourned there.
	Another shared quality, if it can be called that, is the fact that my father was a tailor, just as Jack was. Jack, however, was a master tailor—a cut above my father, who worked in a factory. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) recalled the statement made by a senior Tory when Jack entered the House of Commons:"My God, what is this place coming to? They've got my tailor in here." That, of course, was in the far-off days when the Tory party was led by old Etonian toffs. What was interesting about that, as has been said, was the fact that Jack Weatherill was always very proud indeed of having been a tailor. He always dressed immaculately. Indeed, if he was sitting in the Chair today, Mr. Speaker, he might well ask whether hon. Members have a tailor any more. He was a very generous man. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) pointed out that he would be kind enough to send letters or notes to Members across the House when he appreciated something that they had done. Like the hon. Gentleman, I received one of those notes. He was very good, too, at protecting Members of Parliament when they were in difficulty.
	At Prime Minister's Questions, after Nelson Mandela was released from prison, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) put a question to the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, which began with the words, "If the Prime Minister had been in jail for 27 years". I was sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, and I muttered to a colleague that she should have been. That was picked up by the microphones in the House; it was heard by the whole House and it caused huge uproar. He beckoned to me when the event had taken place and said, "Gerald, I think it would help you with the House if you apologised for what you said." I said, "Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate that, but I don't think it would help me with the Labour party if I were to apologise in that way." He laughed, because he was a House of Commons man and he fully understood the quirks of the House. Like you, Mr. Speaker, and like his predecessor, Jack Weatherill never held high office, and I think that that is a very high qualification for being the Speaker of the House of Commons.

George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman). I hope that he will not dismiss me as an old Etonian toff.
	I want to add a brief footnote to the generous tributes that have been paid to Jack Weatherill. Before he was Deputy Speaker and then Speaker, he was a Whip. In fact, he was a Whip for longer than he was Speaker. He was the Opposition's deputy Chief Whip from 1974 to 1979 in a Parliament that ended with an Opposition Whip's dream—the defeat of the Government by one vote. Whips get a bad press, but Jack never used the rougher tactics that are often attributed to members of the Whips Office. He was unfailingly courteous, good-humoured and totally disarming. If anyone threatened to rebel, he was not angry—he was disappointed. One would be invited to his office, and he would explain that the Government were on their last legs: they were losing by-election after by-election and they would not last the year so it was not the time to rock the boat. That argument lost a bit of credibility when the Parliament entered its fifth year, but it was very effective. He had a rapport with the many senior members of the party who had a good war.
	Jack Weatherill was very kind, too, to those who entered Parliament in 1974, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers), Leon Brittan, Douglas Hurd, Nigel Lawson and the rest of that intake. He was kind and paternal to us. He was totally discreet, loyal and a shrewd judge of character, and he was very supportive of colleagues who went through a difficult time. He was a stickler for punctuality. It was not a good idea to be late for the 2.30 Whips meeting, which began with the order from Jack, "Stand by your beds." One colleague was late, but before Jack could rebuke him, he said he was late because his tailor, a colleague of Jack's, had been late for the appointment and had held him up.
	Jack Weatherill had a difficult relationship with the leader of our party. There was a free vote in the 1974 Parliament—on whether we should have proportional representation for the Scottish Parliament, I think. Those who voted for PR found as they came out of the Lobby Margaret Thatcher taking the names of those who had voted that way. When we won in 1979, Jack Weatherill was the only member of the Front-Bench team who was not appointed to the Government. As we know, he then began an alternative career as Deputy Speaker and Speaker. He was totally fair, standing up for the rights of Back Benchers, and standing up to the gentle intimidation he received from members of his former party.
	Jack was a generous entertainer in Speaker's House. He unearthed an old Victorian song about the MP who could not catch the Speaker's eye, which we all had to sing, with Toby Jessel on the keyboard. Jack was supported by Lyn. He had one of the happiest of political marriages. He was decent, honest, without pretension, without malice, one of the straightest men I have come across. He was not totally infallible. Just after the 1974 Parliament, he sidled up to a newly elected colleague sitting on the Back Benches and said, "I've been reading all about you. You're exactly the person we need to sit on the Council of Europe." My colleague was delighted that his talents had been recognised so early in the Parliament. Five minutes later Jack came back. "I'm frightfully sorry," he said. "Just remind me of your name."
	Jack was a good friend. He was a popular MP for Croydon. He was a great Speaker. Our thoughts are with Lyn and his children and grandchildren as we mourn his passing.

David Winnick: In October 2000, in a debate about the election of a Speaker, I praised—and rightly so—Betty Boothroyd, the outgoing Speaker, and said that in my view, for what it is worth, her two predecessors who had most defended the right of Back Benchers were Selwyn Lloyd and Bernard Weatherill. It was characteristic of Jack—everyone knows that he was known as Jack—that he sent me a note, which I have retained.
	It is no secret that Labour Members wanted Jack as Speaker in 1983, just as it is said that the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, did not. We thought he would defend the right of Back Benchers, and we were never disappointed. I am very pleased that he held the Chair with such distinction. I first came across him during my Croydon days, in the 1960s, when I had a Croydon constituency with a marvellous majority of 81. From the beginning I found Jack—a political opponent, obviously—very easy to get along with. Over the past few days I have tried to recall whether I ever had a quarrel with him. All that I could remember was that we had a tiff some time in the late 1960s. Given my record, one disagreement is not bad. I am glad to say that we got on extremely well.
	Obituaries do not always get it right, as we know, whether of politicians or of other people. What has struck me about the obituaries of Jack Weatherill is that they have been spot-on. To a large extent, they reflected his personality, which has been spoken about today. He was naturally a kind man. He was modest, as I found on many occasions, and very helpful in situations relating to oneself or family, as the case may be. Those who wrote the obituaries understood him well, I am glad to say.
	I always got the impression that Jack recognised that he had had a number of advantages in life from the beginning, but he never forgot for one moment those who had not. I do not know what sort of Conservative one would describe him as—perhaps not in the Thatcherite tradition. I have no doubt in my mind that Jack had a genuine interest in people outside who never had the advantages that he had, and was very sympathetic, as he was to migrants in his constituency and elsewhere, bearing in mind his Army service in India.
	Jack always carried a tailor's thimble. I remember that he said once that it was his mother who suggested that he should always carry it in his waistcoat pocket. If his mother had not suggested it, he probably would have kept it anyway. He knew his family background. His father had been an active trade unionist, sacked because of his union activities, and apparently his father had also been a Fabian socialist. I would have wished that Jack was a Labour Member, but he was not. Nevertheless, he was a person with the qualities that have been described. I kept in touch with him, as other Members did, when he was in the Lords. He was a good man, he was a kind man, and we shall miss him greatly.

William McCrea: I speak on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, who cannot be present today because this afternoon they are burying a young friend who was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
	I came to the House for the first time in 1983. Between 1983 and 1987 I had the privilege of serving under the speakership of Bernard Weatherill. I can honestly say that during that time Jack Weatherill was every bit a gentleman. He was very sympathetic, yet he was very strong. He had the strength and determination as the Speaker to control the House, but he had a sympathy for new Members who were trying to make their way and their mark in the House. That speaks much of him and the character of the gentleman.
	Jack Weatherill was a great and distinguished parliamentarian who made his mark by becoming Speaker. I remember that he was not the choice of some of his colleagues, especially the Prime Minister at the time, but he certainly was the choice of the House and he had the confidence of the House. He not only allowed the House to hold the Executive to account, but defended the rights of Back Benchers and of the smaller parties, to which he gave an honoured place in the House.
	Like many other hon. Members today, I salute the memory of Jack Weatherill and mourn his passing. To his wife, Lady Weatherill, and her family circle, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends I offer my sincere condolences.

Tony Lloyd: On behalf of the whole parliamentary Labour party, I want to join in the tribute to Jack Weatherill and offer our sympathy to his family.
	I first entered Parliament in 1983, at the time that Speaker Weatherill first took the Chair. I echo the remarks that have been made. It was obvious that, as Speaker, he had command of the House, particularly when it was a little buoyant, a little excited and a little excitable. He controlled the House well on those occasions, but it is right to say that he was also a man with a great sense of justice. He recognised that the Speaker of the House had a responsibility not only to the great and the mighty, but to the relatively humble, particularly those who were new in the House.
	I recall that, new as I was and coming from a local government background, when I made one of my early speeches I addressed the Speaker as "Mr. Mayor". That was probably at 9.30 at night, when there were few Members present, so only a small ripple went round the Chamber. At the end of my speech the Speaker called me over, looked at me sternly and said, "Mayor? Not at all." I thought that was terrible. Then, with a smile, he said, "I wouldn't aspire to those dizzy heights."
	That is a minor footnote among all that has been said, but it conveys the humanity of the man, who understood what it was like to be new and perhaps over-awed by this place, and therefore what it was like for someone in the position of Speaker to bring on and encourage those who needed it. In the end, it is the humanity that has come across today and in the various obituaries that we have all read, which is the mark of a man who was a good, sound parliamentarian, a very good colleague and a good advertisement for what we as a democratic Parliament should be about.

Peter Viggers: For a while after the election of every Speaker, there is a period when the House wonders what kind of stamp or mark they will put on the House, so for a few weeks after the election of Mr. Speaker Weatherill the House was wondering how he would be as Speaker. During that period, there was a vigorous debate—it was a noisy event—and a very much loved, popular Member on the Labour Benches, Eric Heffer, was in full flow. If Eric Heffer had a fault, it was that he had a bit of a temper. He was being baited mercilessly by one of our younger whippersnappers on the opposite side of the House. Eventually, Heffer completely lost his cool, spun round and shouted, "Shut up, you stupid git!" From the Chair, Mr. Speaker Weatherill said, "Order, order. I think I'm meant to say that."  [ Laughter . ]
	Jack was universally respected and popular. I should like to join those who have expressed their condolences and best wishes to his charming family.

Diane Abbott: I am very glad to be able to pay this short tribute to Speaker Weatherill.
	Speaker Weatherill was my first Speaker. I entered the House in 1987 alongside the late Member for Tottenham, the former Member for Brent, South, and the current Member for Leicester, East. It is a long time ago now, but we were regarded with extraordinary trepidation by the House authorities, not least our own party managers. We were considered the very last word in black and ethnic extremism. The particular concern of the House authorities was that we would turn out to be the equivalent of the 19th-century Fenians and submit the House to endless disruption, all-night sittings, chaos and so on. I clearly remember that Speaker Weatherill went to enormous trouble to make us feel welcome and involved, even to the point of sharing a few late-night glasses of port with the late Member for Tottenham. The point of that was not just his courtesy, but that what he taught us was that every Member of the House was the equal of any other—that we were all primus inter pares. That reflected not just his kindness but his concern for the House as a living, democratic institution in which everybody ought to feel able to make a contribution; and I think that all of us, in our different ways, made some contribution to the House over the years.
	I want to recognise and remember Speaker Weatherill's care for the House, not as a mausoleum but as a constantly evolving reflection of and avenue for the democratic process. Of course, as everyone has said, he was a tremendous supporter of the rights of Back Benchers, and I am glad to be able to pay this tribute.

Elfyn Llwyd: There have been many fine tributes in this Chamber this afternoon, all of them very well deserved. What comes through is a man of great humanity and great courtesy—a man who was respected in all parts of the Chamber.
	I do not think that I can add very much to the fulsome tribute that you, Mr. Speaker, paid Lord Weatherill on Tuesday in the Chamber. However, on behalf of my party, Plaid Cymru, and the Scottish National party, I wish to associate myself fully with your words of tribute and condolence.
	Lord Weatherill was, as we know, an outstanding Speaker, bringing gravitas to the office. He also brought wisdom and discipline to the Chamber, but always tempered by humility and by humour. He was ever mindful of the rights of Back Benchers and ever generous towards them. He was a founder member of the Industry and Parliament Trust and a founder member of the Industry and National Assembly for Wales Association, which is fairly new. He was also a great supporter of devolution, and he was a constant source of advice and assistance to my predecessor in my seat, Lord Dafydd Elis-Thomas, the Presiding Officer of the National Assembly.
	Lord Weatherill will be sorely missed by all who had the privilege of knowing him.

Robert Key: Mr. Speaker Weatherill was dragged to the Chair in the same year I was elected. Fulsome tributes have been paid, and I concur with them all. Like all good parliamentarians, he had a full life outside Parliament. That fact was brought home to me last September, when I attended the 80th birthday party of a mutual friend. I was struck by the enormous loyalty that he showed to his old school friends and that they showed to him. I realised, too, that his family were so important to him.
	His sartorial elegance was legendary, but he also had a sense of fun, and, being a tailor, he was intensely practical. I remember that in the hot summer of 1983 I went to him in the Chair and said, "Mr. Speaker, it's really very hot and stuffy in here—could you ask for the ventilation to be improved?" He said, "You should wear short-sleeved shirts, like me." I have always taken that advice as the temperature rises.

Michael Jack: On occasions such as this, one thinks it sad that the person we talk of, Jack Weatherill, cannot be here now to listen to what we have all said; I expect that his spirit may well be. Lady Weatherill will no doubt draw great comfort from the very proper tributes that have been paid to this very human of beings.
	I often think, Mr. Speaker, that the job that you and your predecessors have to do is like that of a good headmaster. You have to know your pupils and your staff: you have to know what makes them tick. I have learned one or two things from the tributes that other right hon. and hon. Members have paid so far. I, too, was a recipient of one of Jack Weatherill's little notes. I had been here for a couple of years and had made a particularly robust speech from the Back Benches, which in the days of Margaret Thatcher's Government was quite a brave thing to do. I got a little note of encouragement, and felt absolutely wonderful as a result. One gets very little feedback in this place. Our Whips will tell us if we are not doing the job properly from their standpoint, but nobody comes up and says, from an impartial point of view, "You're doing a good job", or "You're doing a bad job." To get a note from the Speaker, a person whom one immediately respects—one's new headmaster when one comes into this House—is very special indeed. He did, in a way, maintain a pastoral watch over Members of this House and make certain that we got the odd little bit of feedback and comment that was ever so useful.
	I recall, equally, that when he left this place that kind of feedback and interest in what one was doing as an individual did not stop. I would see him in the Lobby or walking somewhere around the place, and he would stop and say, "How are you, Michael? How's it going? What's happening in the party?" He remained very interested in what happened in this place and demonstrated, as colleagues have indicated, that he was, without doubt, a parliamentarian to his dying day.

Ann Winterton: I should like to pay my own very brief personal tribute to the late Speaker Weatherill. I was one of the cohort of 1983, among many colleagues who are in the House today. I well remember sitting almost diagonally opposite at the time when Jack Weatherill, as we all knew him, was dragged to the Chair. He was indeed a gentleman in the true sense of the word and was very much respected. He had a depth to him that at first, perhaps, people did not realise, and he had an independence of character. He was personally extremely kind, and opened up Speaker's House to Members on both sides of the House and their families. I remember going to Speaker's House on many occasions and meeting Mrs. Speaker, as she was known—Lady Weatherill. I would like to express my deepest sympathy to her and her family on their great loss.
	At one of those informal occasions, I was able to say to Mr. Speaker Weatherill that we had in fact met many years previously. When I was about 11, I won an award at the Royal Windsor horse show for best rider in one of the show pony classes. The prize was a pair of jodhpurs to be made by, I think, Bernard Weatherill Ltd. So I was taken by my father by train to London—a big day out—and went to this very smart tailor's emporium, where I met Jack Weatherill. I told him that I still had that small pair of jodhpurs with buckskin strappings, which we had in those days, how very proud I was of them, and how they had done stalwart service. He was extremely pleased by that story. The fact that he carried a thimble in his pocket for the rest of life to remind him of what he was showed the character of the man. He will be greatly missed. He was a great man who was much loved, and the tributes that have been paid today bear out those comments.

Derek Conway: Several colleagues from my 1983 intake have spoken about how they found Speaker Weatherill when they were new to the House and the proceedings and he was new to the Chair. Hon. Members have rightly said that, as an occupant of the Chair, he had complete control of the Chamber and its proceedings. When I became a Whip, I found him extraordinarily helpful in the kind advice that he gave. As several hon. Members have said, he not only presided over the Commons but gave helpful advice when he was not in the Chair.
	Like you, Mr. Speaker, and Mrs. Martin, he and his wife were equally generous in Speaker's House. When my daughter, Claudia, who is now 18, was baptised here, Mr. Speaker Weatherill generously allowed us to have the post-christening reception in his apartment. My middle son, who is now 21 but was then three-and-a-half, complained on my daughter's arrival that he would have preferred a rabbit and was disappointed to have a baby sister. Speaker Weatherill heard about that, so after the christening, at the reception in Speaker's House, he proposed a toast of health to Claudia—squalling baby that she was then—and, from behind his back, produced a stuffed rabbit and presented it to Freddie, who has it to this day. That was the mark of the man.
	The number of times that people have commented on not how Mr. Speaker Weatherill conducted himself in your great office, Mr. Speaker, but his human side is enormously pleasing. I am sure that, although Lyn and his children and grandchildren will mourn the loss of Jack as a husband, father and grandfather, they will take enormous comfort from and great pride in the fact that, as the tributes have made clear, he was personable, kind and, above all, a great family man. That was reflected in his conduct in the great office that he held. He will be fondly remembered by those of us who saw him as our first headmaster as well as our first Speaker.

Julian Lewis: As a member of the 1997 intake, I can offer only the tiniest cameo from my knowledge of Lord Weatherill because I did not meet him until I attended a private dinner in 2003. In the course of the conversation, I happened to mention that my father, who was then only 90, had been a tailor for 71 years and recently had, sadly, had to go into residential care in the evening of his life. Lord Weatherill immediately insisted that I should give him not only my father's name but that of the residential home and the address. He said, "I'm going to write to him as one tailor to another." That is precisely what he did. When, from time to time in the years that followed, I bumped into him in the Corridors of the House, he unfailingly inquired after the welfare of Sam Lewis, my father. If you judge the largeness of a person's character by the thoughtfulness of their small acts of kindness, I will always remember Lord Weatherill for that act of wonderful kindness, if nothing else.

Mr. Speaker: I will undertake to send the extract of  Hansard to Lady Weatherill. We will remember Speaker Weatherill with pride.

Point of Order

David Heath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Leader of the House said, a couple of weeks ago in business questions I asked for the whereabouts of the identity card scheme cost report. It has today been published in a written ministerial statement. I have no further questions to raise on that specific issue—we now have the report. However, there is an issue for the House. What recourse do hon. Members have when the Government fail not only to fulfil an expectation of providing material to the House but a statutory duty to provide material in a timely way. Could that matter be examined? What recourse is available to us when the Government fail in their statutory duty to the House?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter. Perhaps he will allow me to look into it.

Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(7) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 13th December 2006 (Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill (Programme)):
	 Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	 Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.— [Steve McCabe.]
	 Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 7
	 — 
	Limitation on challenge of issue of certificate

Lords amendment: No. 1.
	1.6 pm

Paul Goggins: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	I am very conscious of the fact that, as we are deliberating this afternoon, the funeral of George Dawson, Member of the Legislative Assembly, is taking place. Earlier, the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) referred to the tragic event that occurred this week. We send our condolences to George Dawson's family, friends and political colleagues, and especially to his wife and two children. Hon. Members will understand that, because of the funeral, several hon. Members who would usually be present cannot be in the House this afternoon.
	In our deliberations in both Houses, we have had many discussions about clause 7 and the circumstances in which the Director of Public Prosecution's decision in favour of non-jury trial should be challengeable. I am sure that hon. Members will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to go through all the arguments again. Suffice it to say that it has been our clear intention to put the case law in Shuker on to the statute book.
	We have listened carefully to the concerns that have been expressed, including those in the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the Bill. Paragraph 1.37 states:
	"A prohibition on judicial review except on grounds of dishonesty, bad faith or 'other exceptional circumstances' does not make sufficiently clear in our view that judicial review for lack of jurisdiction or error of law will still be available."
	The amendment would reassure the Committee by confirming that a challenge on such grounds will be possible, provided that it meets the threshold of "exceptional circumstances". It will be for the courts to decide whether that threshold is met in any given case. I want to make it clear that that does not mean that lack of jurisdiction or error of law will of themselves constitute exceptional circumstances in every case. That will be a matter for the courts to decide, based on the arguments put to them.
	I hope that the further change to the clause provides additional ground for consensus and confidence.

Laurence Robertson: On behalf of the official Opposition, may I send our condolences to George Dawson's family and his colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party?
	As the Under-Secretary said, we discussed clause 7 at length in Committee and there is no need to drag matters out. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for taking our comments and those of the Liberal Democrats on board. We devised what we thought at the time to be the final solution, but their lordships have considered the matter and added a few more words to our proposal. I hope that that makes the provision as judicial as it can be in the circumstances. We have no objection to the amendment.

Mark Durkan: May I take the opportunity to join the Under-Secretary and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) in recording my condolences to George Dawson's family? He was a fine and friendly man and I had been looking forward to serving with him in the new Northern Ireland Assembly on the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment.
	The Minister has explained the amendment before us, but I hope that he will take the opportunity to explain further how a defendant is meant to mount a challenge, even with the new additional wording, in circumstances where, as he has told us, there will be absolutely no information on the certificate. How is someone judicially to review a certificate in those circumstances? How can that happen when there is no information on the certificate as to what it is that the Director of Public Prosecutions is concerned about or what judgment he has made about whether a person is or was a member of a proscribed organisation or an associate of such a person? If there is no information about what has motivated the DPP's certificate, how can anyone mount a meaningful challenge?

Lembit �pik: I echo the concern, which has been discussed at length in the past, about the complete opaqueness of the process of issuing a certificate. That, as we have already argued, is one of the fundamental flaws of this legislation. I hope that the Minister will provide some further clarification today, but I am not optimistic that, even now, the Government realise the weakness that we are pointing out.
	I should have expressed at the start the condolences of the Liberal Democrats to George Dawson's family. He died of cancer at the very young age of 45. My own brother, as the House knows, died at 37 and I know how difficult it was for my family to deal with that. I am sure that we are all unanimous in understanding the grief that the Dawson family now feels.
	The advantage of the amendment is, as the Minister said, that it makes it quite clear that while judicial review will be exceptional, it will be fully available in cases involving matters other than dishonesty or bad faith. The reference to exceptional circumstances rightly includes cases where there was a lack of jurisdiction or other significant error of law. For that reason, it evidently extends the breadth of the clause's operation, which is welcome, but as I said at the outset and as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has just pointed out, it still does not overcome one of the fundamental deficiencies of the legislationthe opaqueness of the issuing of a certificate in the first place.

Paul Goggins: I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), but I fear that other colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), may want to drag us back to Second Reading and Committee consideration of the legislation. Where we are at now is that we have achieved a great deal of consensus, including around clause 7, and are coming towards the conclusion of our deliberations. There is a clear test, which is set out in the legislation, and a decision has to be made. We have never hidden from the fact that the decision may rest in particular circumstances on intelligence or other information that is not in the public domain, or that we do not believe that the issuing of the certificate should be the occasion for putting such information into that domain.
	The question has been how best to balance the need to keep a certain level of protection of the information, while allowing people in certain circumstances to be able to challenge the issuing of the certificate. We now think that, with this further Lords amendment, the balance is as right as it possibly can be. I am pleased that we were able to achieve a consensus in the other place and I hope that it is maintained here this afternoon. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle has pursued this issue and I fully understand the reasons why. However, I ask him to understand that what we have sought to do is to provide the necessary balance, including what I accept are narrow grounds for challenge, but grounds for challenge nevertheless.

Mark Durkan: Is the Minister confirming that the certificate issued by the DPP will contain absolutely no information? Will it simply say, This is a case for a no-jury trial? Is that all that it will say and is that what someone is supposed to challenge through judicial review?

Paul Goggins: That is all. The certificate will be issued by the DPP and it will not include any of the sort of information to which my hon. Friend refers. He knows that from our earlier discussions. All that we are doing today is further to clarify the grounds on which an appeal can be made. There has been some suggestion that what we are seeking to do here is completely to remove grounds for appeal. We are not seeking that at all, but we are limiting those grounds.

Lembit �pik: rose

Paul Goggins: I will give way in a few moments, but I fear that, perhaps understandably, colleagues want to take us back to discussions that we have had long since. What we are seeking to do is to express our support as the Government for amendments agreed in the other place after extensive discussion and deliberation both on the Floor of the House and elsewhere, which brings us closer to the balance that we seek to strike between making sure that the grounds are narrow, but none the less there in appropriate cases. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman and then swiftly bring my remarks to a conclusion.

Lembit �pik: Let me explain that the reason why the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and I are making this point today is that we both feel that it could well become a problem. We are trying to register our concern now so that, in anticipation of the Government having to change the legislation in future, there will at least be some clarification in the record of today's debate that some hon. Members were already foreseeing a problem. At the end of the day, even with the improvements of the Lords amendment, challenging a certificate will still be down to guesswork and assumption because the certificate provides precious little evidence for how it might be challenged.

Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman speaks for himself and his remarks are on the record.
	Initially, clause 7 provided grounds for appeal based on dishonesty and bad faith. Consistent with the Shuker judgment, we have now included other exceptional circumstances. In view of the deliberations in the other place, we now confirm that those other exceptional circumstances may include
	lack of jurisdiction or error of law.
	We have now reached the point where the balance is clear and we have clarified all those points in the Bill. I hope that, as I say, that will give us a greater degree of confidence and consensus.

Peter Bottomley: The House has heard the Minister and I do not want to provoke him into answering much of what I am going to say, but I want to make two or three sensible and serious remarks.
	First, the likelihood of judicial review happening will, I suspect, be low, particularly if many of the hopes built up over recent months are carried forward, but it remains an important issue. The Government tend to operate to a degree by precedent and, if this goes unchallenged and unremarked, I do not believe that the House will have done its duty. I am glad that some hon. Members have put questions to the Minister and that he has responded to them.
	Secondly, it may be possible to think of a parallel, albeit not a direct parallel. I remember being involved in the case of a senior officer of the Metropolitan police who had warrants issued by judges and certificates signed by Ministers saying that a particular person was a very serious threat to national security, providing reasons to grant those warrants. It turned out, however, that the information given to Ministers was completely wrong. Without opening all that up again, I hope that there will be some system whereby afterwardswhether it be immediately afterwards or after the trial or perhaps even some years after thatthe information becomes open to review. If and when either judges or Ministers issuing certificates realise that they should not have done so, I hope that they will find some way of saying so.
	Finding out what happens at the time is one issue, but trying to pick up the picture later is another. There needs to be some invigilation of the uses of the certificate to exclude review. I happen to believe that there are too many applications for judicial review for too many cases, but there are certainly times when they are important. There are the examples of Clive Stafford Smith's work on Guantanamo Bay, which has embarrassed other American lawyers, including military defence lawyers; and the work of Gareth Peirce in this country, opening up to judicial supervision cases that would otherwise have gone unchallenged. I am sure that the Minister would accept that we have a responsibility to ensure that powers are used properly and limited wherever possible.

William McCrea: May I say on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends that I deeply appreciate the remarks expressed across the House about my friend in the other place, George Dawson? He was an excellent servant of the people, who represented the people well. I know that his family will find comfort in the remarks that have been made.
	My colleagues and I accept the provisions in clause 7. They have already been debated in Committee, and we will therefore support the Government on this matter.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	After Clause 8
	 Lords amendment : No. 2.

Paul Goggins: I beg to move, That the House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 8.

Paul Goggins: This group of amendments provides that the non-jury trial system in the Bill will expire after two years unless the Secretary of State makes an affirmative resolution order to extend it for subsequent two-year periods. The system contained in the Bill has always been intended to address the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, especially the paramilitary and community-based pressures that jurors in Northern Ireland face.
	Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have made clear their commitment to return to jury trial in all cases in Northern Ireland as soon as the security situation permits. Initially, it was our view that the special provisions should be allowed to wither on the vine. We have listened carefully to the debates on this matter, however, and that has given us cause to reflect on our initial view. We have paid attention to the quickening pace of change in Northern Ireland and the move towards more normal circumstances. Such a move has been evidenced by, among other things, Sinn Fein's commitment to support the police and the rule of law, and by the events earlier this week involving the devolution of power to Northern Ireland.
	We also accept that the inclusion of a sunset clause will give greater clarity and certainty, and provide for a continuing role for Parliament in scrutinising the provisions. The amendments will provide for that. The amendments also provide for transitional arrangements for cases that begin under the new provisions to be allowed to come to a conclusion, even though the provisions might have lapsed. They also make a number of minor technical and legislative changes, and I am happy to support them.

Laurence Robertson: I thank the Minister for listening to the debate on this issue. When we were discussing the matter on Second Reading and in Committee, we were concerned about extending the principle of non-jury trials beyond July 2007 because of the improving security situation. The Independent Monitoring Commission had reported favourably on the activityor lack of activity, as it described itof the IRA, and Sinn Fein had publicly declared its support for the police and the criminal justice system. We recognised, however, that there was some way to go regarding dissident republicans and loyalist paramilitaries, so we supported the retention of an ability to hold a trial without jury. We welcomed the change of emphasis, however, and the change to a presumption that trials would be held with a jury unless otherwise stated by the Director of Public Prosecutionsalthough we disputed who should actually make the decision.
	I have one further question for the Minister. If these aspects were to be devolved in due course, what would happen? There is talkalthough nothing is set in legislation yetof further devolution in 2008, yet the sunset period in the Bill is for two years. How does the Minister envisage the arrangements working in those circumstances?

Mark Durkan: I, too, welcome the fact that the Minister has reflected further on the provisions to make permanent the option of non-jury trials in Northern Ireland. When the Government introduced the Bill, they said that those provisions were all about normalisation but, in trying to make permanent the temporary, annually renewable provisions relating to the Diplock courts, they were attempting to normalise the abnormal. I welcome the fact that the Government have thought better of permanently providing for a non-jury court option subject to a review by the Secretary of State, and that they have restored the principle that, if this provision is to be extended, it must be renewed by Parliament.
	In the present context, I, like the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), find it hard to accept the justification for continuing the provision at all. We had that debate on Second Reading and elsewhere. The Government's move from introducing legislation last year to end Diplock courts in July this yearor July next year at the latestto providing permanently for the non-jury option did not seem to rhyme either with the Government's judgment of the more benign circumstances or with the very positive prospects that we see now. I was always at a loss to understand how special, annually renewable, temporary provisions that were introduced in the vicious heat of the worst violence of the troubles would be necessary as a permanent feature in the cool calm of the current circumstances. I welcome the fact that the Government have reflected further on this matter.
	I hope that the Minister will clarify the point raised by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury about whether the Government intend the renewal of the legislation to be devolved to the Assembly. Do they intend the power to continue to reside with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and this House, rather than being transferred to a Minister for Justice in the Northern Ireland Assembly?

Alan Reid: I support the amendments, as they certainly improve the Bill, and I am pleased that the Government have listened to the points raised in earlier debates. The amendments provide reassurance that the Government truly expect the provisions to be temporary. I am also pleased that the affirmative resolution procedure will be used to renew them. That will ensure that the Government need to review the operation of non-jury trials in Northern Ireland and consider whether they are still necessary. It will also ensure that the final responsibility lies with Parliament as a whole to make the decision. I certainly support the amendments.

William McCrea: I would like the Minister to clarify a point that has already been touched on. In the event of the devolution of policing and justice functions to Northern Ireland, would the renewal of the non-jury trial provisions in the Bill be a matter for Westminster or for the Assembly? We need to have that point clarified in the House today.

Peter Bottomley: I want to speak to Lords amendments Nos. 6 and 7, although they are not the most important issues in the Bill. The amendments affect clause 50. Lords amendment No. 6 would limit the extent of the provision to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That would exclude Scotland. An explanation for that might have been given in the Lords; I am sorry that I did not check up on that. Will the Minister tell us whether that aspect of the provision is an oversight, or whether there is some reason why trials of this nature cannot take place in Scotland? If that information is not available this afternoon, I would be happy to accept a letter of explanation from him.
	Lords amendment No. 7 states:
	Page 32, line 29, after Schedule 1 insert (and section 8 and ( Duration of non-jury trial provisions)(1) to (4) so far as relating to those amendments).
	It is reasonably clear what the first part does, and presumably it is all governed by the clause relating to the extent to which these trials may take place in certain parts of the United Kingdom. If it is clear to the Minister, perhaps he could give us an explanation, but if not, I would find it useful if he could write to me. This is a very technical point and it is beyond my comprehension.

Paul Goggins: I am grateful for the increasing echo of support and consensus for the amendments. I am pleased that, at long last, I have been able to do something that has pleased my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), which has not happened too often during the course of the Bill. I should also place on record the fact that at this moment, as at others, we would have benefited from the advice of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), who is assiduous in such matters. She is unable to be here with us this afternoon, but her contribution to debates on such issues is important.
	I have been asked further questions about two substantive issues. On the issue raised by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), there are separate provisions for non-jury trial in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, and those are contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. That legislation contains references to the special provisions for non-jury trials in Northern Ireland. As we are changing those special provisions, we must also change the references in that other legislation. I am happy to confirm that in further detail in writing.
	A number of Members requested further information on the second issue, which was whether the decision on renewal will remain with Westminster or be devolved. The renewal decision will remain with Westminster. Clearly, three of the four conditions in the first limb of the statutory test relate to proscribed organisations, and the system of non-jury trial falls within that part of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 dealing with national security matters. It is therefore clear that the matter should remain one for Westminster, and that renewal should be considered by the House. That does not mean that we cannot discuss such matters with a future Justice Minister, First Minister or Deputy First Minister, as we reach a conclusion about whether to bring forward further affirmative resolutions. The decision, however, will be one for the House.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	Before Clause 42
	 Lords amendment: No. 3

Paul Goggins: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendment (a) in lieu thereof.

Paul Goggins: We are certainly with the Lords in spirit in relation to the original amendment, which is entirely in keeping with the policy that the Government have been pursuing administratively on community-based restorative justice. We wish, however, to address a number of minor drafting points.
	The amendment provides that the Secretary of State shall maintain a public register of schemes that appear, to him, to be community-based restorative justice schemes, and that meet published requirements. The Government have already put those requirements into the public domain in a protocol for community-based restorative justice schemes, which was published on 5 February 2007. The Government further propose to maintain the register of accredited schemes and to make that fully accessible to the public.
	Schemes will be added to the register when it can be demonstrated that they can meet the stringent requirements set out in the protocol. In making that determination, the Secretary of State will request a pre-accreditation inspection report from the chief inspector of criminal justice in Northern Ireland, which shall examine a scheme's ability to meet those standards. The new clause provides a power for the chief inspector of criminal justice to inspect schemes both prior to registration and subsequently, to ensure that they continue to meet the required standard. Reports of those inspections will be made to the Secretary of State, and the amendment provides that existing statutory arrangements for the laying and publication of inspection reports by the chief inspector will apply. By virtue of section 49(2) of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, the Secretary of State must already lay all such reports before both Houses of Parliament and arrange for them to be published.
	I acknowledge that the Government's amendment does not refer to the ability of the chief inspector to make specific recommendations about schemesand to recommend removal from the registeras was provided in the Lords amendment. There are not explicit references, however, in the primary legislation governing the function of the chief inspector in relation to the making of specific recommendations about any other organisations that are subject to his inspection. The chief inspector's ability to make such recommendations as he thinks appropriate is plainly inherent within the inspectorate function, rather than requiring to be expressed explicitly in statute. The Government amendment is therefore consistent with the approach taken in existing legislation relating to the chief inspector's other inspection functions.
	The Government amendment does, however, require the inspector, following a pre-registration inspection, to report on the ability of schemes to meet the requirements set out in the protocolI am sure that the whole House would regard that as desirable, but it was not expressed explicitly in the Lords amendment. The chief inspector will clearly make such recommendations as he thinks appropriate, in each case, and the Secretary of State will take full account of his reports, which shall be published. The Government believe that the new clause continues to reflect the objective of the Lords amendment, and I commend it to the House.

Laurence Robertson: The Minister is aware of the Opposition's concern, which we have raised previously, about the potential for some of the schemes to fall into the wrong hands. We are still concerned about that. I am grateful to him, however, for discussing the new clause with me beforehand. As a result of those discussions, I am happy to support the Government amendment.

Mark Durkan: The Minister seeks to disagree with the Lords amendment and provide an alternative Government amendment. After listening closely to the Minister's comments, I have tried to distinguish between the two amendments on offer, and I am not sure that I can fully do so. I am reminded of the old advert for Campbell's soup, The difference is in the thickness. It is not clear to me that the difference can be justified by the Minister's reference to the inspector's powers to make recommendations being implicit elsewhere, so that they do not need to be made explicit in the Bill. In earlier debates, the Government were at pains to say that they were trying to use the Bill to make things explicit in legislation that were already in case law, as established by the Shuker case. We are now being told that we ought to make pains not to make things explicit in legislation when they are implicit elsewhere.
	In relation to the previous amendments, a number of Members asked questions about the Government's intentions or assumptions as to where the relevant powers would lie after the devolution of justice and policing. Is it the Government's assumption that the Secretary of State's powers in the two different amendments will transfer to a Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland on the devolution of justice and policing, and that such a Minister will provide the register of community-based restorative justice groups, or might that power also remain with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?

Lembit �pik: May I remind the House of how far we have come? We are now talking about restorative justice schemes being regulated in a formalised way. If we remember the previous position, that is a great step forward. The fact that we are arguing about the details is a source of great hope, because in the past there was no question but that acts of vigilantism, rather than formalised restorative justice schemes, were taking place in Northern Ireland. Let us give credit to those in Northern Ireland who have made that change, and to the Government for getting us this far. Thinking about how far we have come, I look at Airey Neave's name there above the exit to the Chamber, and I remember how he died. Now we are talking about nuances to try to get the legislation right.
	The British Brands Group is very concerned about copycat products. It seems to me that the Government amendment is a classic example of a copycat product. Like the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), I thought the original amendment was pretty good. It made the points very well, and was written by a man who was very well versed in the problem, Lord Trimble. The copycat product is the Government's amendment, which seems to be saying almost the same thing in slightly different words. I share the bafflement of the hon. Member for Foyle that the Government did not simply accept the original proposal.
	As far as we can tell, the main differences between the two amendments are that the Government do not like the phrase
	justice schemes shall be inspected regularly,
	and do not want to enshrine the work of inspection in the mandate of the Criminal Justice Inspectorate. Why not? As we have heard, they want the provisions to be implicit in the legislation, but why should we opt for assumption when those provisions are set out explicitly in the amendment that the House of Lords passed thanks to David Trimble?
	I have no objection to the Government's amendment, but I do object to their monkeying about with an amendment that was perfectly good in the first place. Methinks their amendment is driven more by ego than by rational consideration, and I should like to think that even at this late hour the Minister may think again.

Mark Durkan: After all, the very amendment to which the Government are objecting to in this House was commended by the Minister who steered the Bill through the House of Lords.

Lembit �pik: Indeed. This shows a lack of joined-up thinking, or joined-up thinking that is so poor that I call for the Prime Minister's resignation. I believe that I will secure it, and then I shall take the credit.
	It would not harm the Government sometimes to accept amendments that are perfectly good even if they do not come from the Government's own stable. It would show good faith and good will, at no cost to the integrity of the legislation.

David Anderson: I welcome the amendment, particularly as a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Last year we conducted an investigation of community-based restorative justice schemes, looking at those in Andersonstown and Bangor. It was clear that while the schemes required some form of regulation, which the amendment will clearly provide, they were effective on the ground. That was because many of those involved had spent 30 or 40 years performing deeds that they now regrettedeverything up to and including murderand were now able to intervene early in the lives of young people, telling them Do not follow the path that I took. We saw for ourselves the success of that programme. Reoffending rates were at least 10 times higher among people who went to prison than among those who had benefited from community-based restorative justice schemes.
	I hope that whatever we agree todayand I am sure that we will agree to the Government's amendmentthe aim is to make the schemes work rather than to limit their ability to work. And as well as being enabled to work within the letter of the law, they should be funded properly. That has not happened in the past.

William McCrea: My colleagues and I have expressed concern about community-based restorative justice schemes in the past, and I am still concerned about many aspects of them. However, the Lords amendment endeavoured to assist, and I think that explicit legislation is always preferable to implicit legislation. I cannot understand why the Government did not want this House to accept that amendment. However, given the support of Her Majesty's Opposition as well as the Government, there is clearly no reason for the House to divide.

Peter Bottomley: I support the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). It is House of Commons procedures that have made the position rather more awkward than it ought to be. I think that To move, That this House agrees with the Lords but will word the amendment in a slightly different way would be a better way of phrasing the motion.
	Some elements of the Secretary of State's amendment make elements of the original amendment more explicit, and are therefore welcome. I especially welcome the requirement for co-operation with the inspector, which appears early in the proposed new clause. The reference to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 is another example of explicit provision that should be welcomed.
	On this occasion, I have no questions to ask the Minister. I simply think that he is right.

Paul Goggins: I am grateful for all the comments that have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) was absolutely right, and I pay tribute to the work he has done as a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. As he said, community-based restorative justice schemes have great potential as a diversion from prosecution, dealing with a pattern of offending behaviour at an early stage in a way that diverts people from the criminal justice system altogether. I am sure we all support that, but there have been concerns about various schemes. What we have now is a system of accreditation and inspection that is rigorous, and can determine whether individuals working in schemes are suitable for the task. We have a robust system, including the protocol.
	I pay tribute to the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), who is no longer with us now that he is happily charged with other responsibilities. He has done considerable work to establish this system, which will be continued under the watchful eye of the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle).
	There is no question of ego here. I pay tribute to Lord Trimble for his workfor the amendments that he tabled, and for his efforts to ensure that the Bill provides the certainties and securities that he seeks. My right hon. Friend Lord Rooker accepted the spirit of what was proposed, but made it clear that a check with parliamentary counsel would be necessary to ensure that the amendments did all that we hoped and expected them to do. The advice from parliamentary counsel is that the amendments that he initially brought to our attention are defective, in that they make specific requirements that are not necessary. Indeed, if we made specific requirements in relation to these schemes, we would need to legislate for reports and requirements in relation to a range of others that are not included in legislation. The inspector already has the power and responsibility to make reports and recommendations, and the Secretary of State is obliged to publish them and lay them before both Houses. The position is absolutely clear.
	Let me say to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and others that this matter will rightly be devolved to a future Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland. It does not relate to the matters that we were discussing earlier, and it can and should be devolved as we make progress towards the day of further devolution of policing and justice in Northern Ireland.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Lords amendment disagreed to.
	 Government amendment (a)in lieu agreed to.

Clause 42
	  
	Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice

Lords amendment: No. 4.

Paul Goggins: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 5.

Paul Goggins: The Secretary of State is required to make an order abolishing the deputy Justice Minister post three years after the devolution of policing and justice functions, unless the Assembly has resolved that it be abolished earlier or, alternatively, that it be retained beyond that time. As originally drafted, the Bill made such an order subject to the negative resolution procedure. However, the Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform considered the order-making power and observed that the circumstances specified in the Bill in which the Secretary of State is required to act are matters of ascertainable fact, not of opinion, and the timing, too, is preordained. In other words, the time scale is set, the period of three years is in statute, and it will be a matter of fact that either the three years have been completed or the Assembly has made a specific request.
	In the consequent absence of any element of discretion for the Secretary of State, the Committee argued that the negative procedure was unnecessary. We are content to accept that recommendation, and the amendments give effect to it.

Laurence Robertson: Having discussed this matter with the Minister, I am satisfied that this is the correct way to proceed.

Mark Durkan: I welcome the fact that the Minister is moving to tidy up an absurdity that had been built into the legislation, for all the procedural and logical reasons that he has pointed out. There was a political anomaly underlying the whole Justice Minister conceptthe concept of the creation of a temporary Justice Minister post. I am aware of the circumstances in which the Government produced this idea. It was one of a number of vacuous models that were produced to deal with the issue of justice and policing in relation to departmental structures. We do not need to get hot and bothered about this matter beyond the procedural and logical points that the Minister has raised, because I do not think that this option will have to be pursued, and certainly not for the reasons that the Government thought they should introduce it in the first place.

Alan Reid: We, too, support the Government on this amendment. As the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has pointed out, these matters are matters of discernable fact and not of opinion, and the timing is laid down. As the Secretary of State has no discretion, there is no point in having a parliamentary procedure, so we support the amendment.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments No. 5 to 8  agreed to.

Ways and Means
	  
	Rating (Empty Properties)

Edward Balls: I beg to move,
	That provision may be made for and in connection with the liability of owners of unoccupied hereditaments to a non-domestic rate.
	This motion precedes a Bill being introduced to the House that will take forward recommendations made by Kate Barker and Sir Michael Lyons that the Government bring the rating of empty commercial property into the 21st century. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced on Budget day, this reform has environmental, social and economic merits. Any Member who supports the continued regeneration of urban areas, the use of brownfield sites for developments to meet both our housing and commercial property needs, and the abolition of distortions in the tax system that artificially hold rents up and apply unwarranted costs to business, will want to join me in supporting the motion.
	Perhaps it is worth setting out why Kate Barker and Sir Michael Lyons both considered reform of the rating of empty property to be important. Currently, a commercial property is subject to full business rates when it is occupied but is given relief when it is empty. Different types of property get more or less relief when they are empty. Shops and offices have full relief for three months after they fall empty and then 50 per cent. relief ad infinitum. On the other hand, industrial property enjoys complete relief for as long as the premises are empty. This distinction between the relief given to different types of propertywhich is, in fact, a very large form of state aidhas its history in the depressions of the 1970s and 1980s, when demand for industrial premises was low and demand from alternative users for such land was also low.
	Two important things have changed since that distinction was drawn into the legislation. First, after a decade of sustained growth the demand for, and price of, land has increased dramatically, placing a burden on both households and businesses needing to access property. Efficient land use, and in particular the use of brownfield land to protect greenfield sites, has become a key priority for the Government. Tax relief for empty propertycurrently worth more than 1.3 billionneeds to be considered in this light.
	Secondly, and as a direct result of this increased pressure on land, the Government asked Kate Barker to consider the incentives for efficient land use in her assessment of planning and land use. As part of her analysis, Barker found that the current empty property reliefs are not aligned with risksthere is little difference between the risks of different types of property falling empty. On that basis, the different tax treatments afforded to different types of property do not reflect real conditions in the market and are therefore creating a distortion.
	On those grounds alone there is reason enough for Barker to propose reform, but the data become more startling when we look at where the tax relief is going. Sunderland, Redcar and Alnwick were each listed in the top 10 authorities with the lowest proportion of their commercial property stock claiming relief, while the City, Manchester and Birmingham are all in the top 10 authorities with property claiming relief. Clearly, land is not in such over-supply in those parts of the country that we should be offering tax relief to property that is not in useand in doing so shift the burden of taxation on to other taxpayers.

Stewart Jackson: Does the Minister concur with the views expressed by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which suggests in respect of the demise of the United Kingdom engineering industry in the 1970s that a major contributory factor was that the inability to mothball factories during recession and the requirement to pay full rates on non-producing premises frequently led to machinery being sold off and buildings being demolished?

Edward Balls: I will come back to the views of that institution in due course. Clearly, at that time the combination of low rents and the fact that in the '70s, '80s and early '90s recessions were a regular occurrence was a concern for businesses. As a result of the stability that we have put in place in recent years, that is now less of a concern.
	The level of rents in the UK is also a key driver for reform. A series of recent reports by the private sectorincluding by CB Richard Ellis in 2006 and DTZ research in 2004 and 2005have identified UK rents as among the highest in the world. That west end office space in London is regularly ranked as the most expensive in the world reflects a variety of influences; land supply and planning restrictions are two important factors. However, as London is the world's financial capital, it is perhaps less surprising that there are high rents in London than it is to find that office rents in cities such as Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Edinburgh are ranked as more expensive than in Manhattan, Madrid, Frankfurt and Sydney by these various reports.
	There are significant regional variations in headline rents. In the south-east, Guildford's rents are 10 per sq ft but Brighton's are 5.50 per sq ft. In the north-west, rents are 6.25 per sq ft in south Manchester but 6 per sq ft in Trafford park. In the north-east retail sector, rents peak at 330 per sq ft in Newcastle, and fall to 145 in Sunderland and 65 in Stockton.
	There is also significant variation within towns and cities. For example, in Newcastle rents vary from 330 in Eldon squarethe central shopping mallto just 70 on Lower Grainger street, which is within half a mile of Eldon square. Office rents in London range from more than 60 per sq ft in prime west end and the City to 48 in prime mid-town and 50 in prime Canary Wharf. In contrast, rents are 21 in Brentwood and 13 in Harlow. Rental prices have a real impact on business, and finding ways in which we can address the efficiency of the commercial property market is a key objective of the reforms.
	I am sure that Members in all parts of the House recognise that land should not sit idle while labour and capital pay. Kate Barker said that reforming empty property rates
	would have a number of beneficial effects.
	She went on:
	when there is the prospect of continued vacancy, landlords are more likely to reduce rents in order to encourage occupation. This is beneficial for both new and existing business tenants.
	She added:
	landowners have less of an incentive to hold back land in the expectation that property values will continue to rise or to secure a change of use. This will increase the supply of land for development.
	She also said that
	development is encouraged on sites which have already been developed, which reduces the need to build on greenfield sites and improves environmental outcomes.
	The Government accepted Kate Barker's report and asked Sir Michael Lyons to consider the implications arising from these recommendations as part of his proposals for reforming local government finance. Sir Michael received representations from local planners and local government bodies, from regional economic development offices and from the Federation of Small Businesses. All were in favour of reform and recognised that the measures set out in this Bill will increase the supply of land and commercial property available for occupation and redevelopment.
	From such local authorities as Hull city council and Hampshire county council came requests for changing the rating of empty property to increase the supply of land and to reduce speculation. Birmingham city council suggested bringing industrial premises back into the scope of rating empty property, and bodies with wider development objectives also responded. For example, Merseytravel recommended that the unlimited period of rate relief in the current system be done away with. The Federation of Small Businesses had already identified this as an important area for reform in its 2005 report. It realised, as did the Barker report, that increasing the opportunity cost of holding property empty will increase downward pressure on rents. As companies that predominantly rent their premises, the availability of property at lower rents is critically important to small companies across the country.

Stewart Jackson: What feedback has the Economic Secretary had from urban regeneration companies and development agencies about these potential tax changes, given that there is a prima facie case that the entrepreneurial spirit needed to regenerate some very disadvantaged parts of the countryhe mentioned such places as Hampshire but, as he knows, generally speaking it is not that disadvantagedwould have a big impact? However, these tax changes will be a disincentive to intervening in those areas to get businessesretail and othersinto those properties and premises.

Edward Balls: Once again, the hon. Gentleman pre-empts my speech. I shall come to how we can ensure that we support regeneration in the areas that he is talking about; indeed, there are ways we can do so through these provisions. As I said, we have consulted widely and we have received a wide range of positive contributions as part of that process.
	Sir Michael also received representations that did not favour change, predominantly from the property industry. Some pointed to the past as a reason for not going ahead with change today, suggesting that reform would impact, as was said, on redevelopment. Others, such as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, suggested that there are a number of other aspects of business rates reliefs and exemptions that also merit re-appraisal. These are serious issues that we have reflected on, and they will in part be incorporated into the detail of the regulation that will be put before the House in due course, and into some of the accompanying measures that I will discuss in more detail in a moment. However, on balance, the Government agreed with Sir Michael and Kate Barker that reform should go ahead. Sir Michael said:
	Demand for land for development is growing as a result of economic change and household growth, and it is clear that, more than ever, we need to ensure that all previously developed land is used most effectively.
	Analysis shows that vacant property is found in areas of high demand as well as in areas of low demand and former industrial areas.
	Finding ways to raise the opportunity cost of holding unused land and property in areas of high demand at such a time would be desirable. Reforming the empty property relief would help to provide this, and thus assist local authorities.
	It was on the basis of Sir Michael's advice that the Budget announcement on this issue was made.
	Let me discuss the detail of our proposals, which will be set out in due course before this House in detailed regulation and legislation. The proposed reform will mean that most properties will enjoy a three-month rate-free period on becoming empty; the period for industrial properties will be six months. Three months was the limit on the rate-free period already established in legislation, but because Kate Barker demonstrated in her report that there is no inherently greater risk of particular types of property falling empty, it is right that there should be convergence in the tax treatment of all forms of property. We are therefore bringing the treatment of industrial property toward that for office and retail property, allowing it a six-month period with no rates. We intend to exempt charities and community amateur sports clubs altogether from paying rates on empty properties that they own.
	These reforms will impact on the owners of long-term empty property, including existing and new build premises, but because the Government now have the evidence that we need to create targeted support in areas where it is needed, we are bringing forward reform to empty property rates as part of a wider package of incentives for the future use and re-use of land and property.

Anne Main: I welcome the fact that the Economic Secretary appears to want to target this relief. If he has the information, will he say now whether an assessment has been made of where most of these empty properties are and what sort they are? For example, are they historic buildings or commercial premises built for speculative let?

Edward Balls: I said earlier that these issues apply to the whole country, in both high and low-demand areas. Particular protections are in place for charities, sports clubs and listed buildings, which will be considered as part of ongoing consultation on the legislation. However, what we can do is to target particular help on low-demand areas.
	We recognise that in some parts of the country there are low levels of demand and that, as a result, commercial property can sit empty for longer periods. By way of response, we have introduced with effect from 11 Aprila full year in advance of the proposed changes to empty property rating, which will not come into effect until next Aprila new 100 per cent. capital allowance for the renovation of business property in assisted areas across the UK. The business premises renovation allowance is available to owners in these areas of property that has stood empty for more than one year, and it will provide a huge boost to those who want to create attractive commercial property fit for the needs of new and existing businesses.
	Given that we also want to maintain high levels of development on brownfield land, especially that which it is costly to remediate, we are consulting now on the extension of land remediation relief to a wider range of contaminated sites. The consultation includes extending the scope of the existing 150 per cent. capital allowance to the clean-up of sites with long-term derelict property on them, as well as to those that have been invaded by Japanese knotweedwhich I am sure at least some Members will recognise as a serious threat to many urban and rural locations. We intend also to increase the incentives for on-site remediation, thereby decreasing the pressure on landfill.
	To provide flexibility for leaseholders faced with onerous penalty payments to enable them to rid themselves of leases that they no longer need, or which do not provide them with the flexibility that they require, we intend to consult on changing the tax treatment of such payments to ensure that they are fully recognised by the tax system. For those companies actively using property and paying business rates, we have also accepted Sir Michael Lyons' recommendation that the retail prices index cap on business rates be retained. This fits into our wider strategy of improving business competitiveness. We will also examine the case for local supplements on the rates, as set out by Sir Michael, but while paying the closest attention to ensuring that business has a strong and clear means of holding local authorities to account. Reforms to be outlined in the planning White Paper will help to provide an environment for the development of the quality and quantity of property that UK businesses and homeowners demand.
	Finally, let me put this in a slightly broader context. Investment in property is essential to business and to creating a modern, dynamic economy. At the centre of the reforms that we have put in place in recent years has been the launch of UK real estate investment trusts. Thirteen companies have already become UK REITs since the beginning of this year. In addition to the measures that we are debating today, REITs are another way in which we can improve the quantity and quality of finance available for property in a revenue-neutral fashion.
	We also announced in the Budget that we are taking the same principles that shape UK REITs and building tax equivalence for property authorised investment funds, thereby allowing open-ended investment in property through unit trusts to enjoy the same tax treatment as that enjoyed by UK REITs. These are supportive measures to boost the supply of property suitable for investment that meet the needs of British firms. Today's motion is one part of that reform and modernisation, which spans the whole commercial property market and provides incentives for owners, developers and tenants to produce the right kind of property, and to take advantage of efficiencies in the use of land and property that will increase supply and drive down costs for their consumers.
	The Government are working hard to ensure that we provide the right conditions for businesses to grow, for land and property to continue to be developed, and, once developed, for it to be used efficiently. In its submission to the Callcutt review of house-building delivery, the Home Builders Federation signalled the supply of land as the major factor that will determine whether the Government's target of 200,000 new homes built by 2016 will be met. As the Government increase the supply of housing to meet the needs of households across the UK, a tax relief for property sitting empty on developed sites makes neither economic nor environmental nor social sense. That is why this is a principled reform that is overdue and forms part of a positive set of announcements on the future taxation of land and property.
	The measure has had extensive work and consultation by my hon. Friends the Financial Secretary and the Minister for Local Government. It is hard to achieve a consensus with the Opposition on the importance of building new homes, given the continual opposition of shadow Front Benchers to house building in our country, but I hope that we will reach consensus at least on this measure.

Michael Gove: It is a pleasure to see the Economic Secretary in his place today. I am grateful for his breaking off early from the celebratory lunch that I know will be taking place in No. 11 Downing street today, but given the scant number of contributors we may expect this afternoon there will be ample opportunity for him to return to the Treasury before midnight and I expect that the party will still be in full swing.
	I also thank the Economic Secretary for being so fluent and authoritative in his remarks. I wish, however, to pick him up on just one error. He seems to labour under the misapprehension that Opposition Front Benchers in some way oppose house building and development. I have no wish to detain him from the celebrations that he will attend later, but I refer him to the variety of speeches that I, my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) have made, in the House and elsewhere, identifying the need for more housing development in our country and making the case that without additional house building we will not have the supply to meet the demand that exists. Without that additional house building, we will not be able to help first-time buyers on to the property ladder as they deserve. I am always happy to reach a consensus with the Economic Secretary and with his hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning. Every opportunity to reach a consensus on the need for more house building is one that I am delighted to take.

Edward Balls: We have discussed this issue regularly over the past few years in proceedings on the Finance Bill and, from time to time, over breakfast, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledges. I understand that speeches have been made containing general statements about the support for house building and first-time buyers, but statements are also regularly made on the websites of the hon. Gentleman and his Front-Bench colleagues that oppose house building in their own constituencies. Have those website references been removed or do his nimby tendencies continue to flourish in his constituency?

Michael Gove: I am flattered that the Economic Secretary takes such a close interest in what appears on my website. I hope that he has also been reading my articles in  The Times. I have written repeatedly to the Minister for Housing and Planning and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government specifically asking for more development in my constituency. As I am sure the Minister for Local Government is aware, there is a particular issue in my constituency as a consequence of a European Union ruling. The Thames basin heath special protection area, which covers much of my constituency, has an effective moratorium on development, and I am seeking its removal. As a constituency Member and as shadow Minister for Housing and Planning, I am anxious to see more development, reflecting both the national interest and the interests of my constituents. I am grateful to the Department for Communities and Local Government for the help that I have received as a constituency Member.

Edward Balls: You'll be in trouble with your colleagues.

Michael Gove: No, I have no trouble with my colleagues. I receive from them a generosity of support and enthusiasm in making the case for more house building that I find more encouraging than I can say.

Anne Main: My hon. Friend will know that we had a good debate about housing totals in Hertfordshire. We welcome our share of development in the area, but we do not welcome unsustainable development or development that has no environmental impact assessment. Unfortunately, that is what we are suffering at present. We ask only that the level of development is reasonable, not unreasonable. The unreasonable figure of 93,200 was not acceptable, but 79,200 was. It is a case not of no building, but of sustainable building. I know that my hon. Friend feels the same about that issue.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed some latitude, but rather than debating housing we should now be debating the motion before the House.

Michael Gove: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Your intervention enables me to make the point that struck all of us listening to the Economic Secretary. Fascinating as it was when he gave us a tour d'horizon of market rents in the commercial sector, the real aim of his speech was not so much the more effective operation of the property market as to speak in service of yet another tax increase. Fluent and authoritative as he so often is, all that fluency and authority were bent towards one endensuring that the Chancellor can get the 900 million additional revenue that this measure will raise every year. The most compelling argument in favour of the measure was not made at the Dispatch Box today by the Economic Secretary, but in the Red Book when that figure was produced. That is the principal justification for the change. The Chancellor's imperative is plugging his black hole, not the sensitive rebalancing of rates and reliefs to secure the better working of the property market.
	The Economic Secretary mentioned Sir Michael Lyons' report, and it is fascinating reading. If the Economic Secretary had told us everything that the report contained, he would no doubt have reminded the House that it had suggested that any change to the relief be introduced only in 2010 after extensive consultation. He is introducing it two years before Sir Michael envisaged, without the consultation that he requested.

Edward Balls: Last week, shadow Treasury Ministers spent 500 million on opposing pension term assurance. Four weeks ago, the shadow Pensions Minister spent some 3.5 billion a year on a pledge to reverse the pension tax credit reform of 1997. Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that he would trump those pledges by spending 1 billion a year under a future Conservative Government by reversing this reform?

Michael Gove: That is an intriguing question, but it is the Opposition who ask the questions here, and I have several for the Minister for Local Government to answer when he winds up. It is the answers to those questions that will dictate what we will do. We will see what happens as a consequence of the arguments made by the Minister.

Stewart Jackson: Given that the CBI has estimated that the tax burden on business has risen since 1997 by 50 billion, would my hon. Friend find more merit in the proposals if there was a compensatory reduction in business taxes to match the rhetoric of the Chancellor and the Economic Secretary?

Michael Gove: As ever, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Some of the Economic Secretary's comments about the support that he wishes to see for small business would carry more credibility if the Budget that he helped to co-author had not been responsible for such a comprehensive tax hit on small businesses overall. The record of the Economic Secretary and the Treasury in supporting small businesses is far from exemplary. In that respect, one can understand the degree of scepticism on this side of the House.
	I wish to raise three broad issues in connection with this measure, and I have several specific questions. I appreciate the kind invitation from the Economic Secretary to reach a measure of consensus. As I said earlier, I love consensus and I always like to reach it whenever possible. But we can be certain that the measure is worthy of support only if we get satisfactory answers to those questions. The three broad areas are a matter of theory, a question of principle and the reality in practice.
	On a matter of theory, on what basis do we levy business rates? What is the theoretical principle behind them? As widely understood, they are a tax on business activity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) might say, it is one of all too many taxes on business activity. Nevertheless, business rates are an accepted part of the Chancellor's portfolio. Business rates are supposed to be a tax not on land values but on commercial activity. That is why there is a relief when there is no activity. Changing the principle to remove that relief does more than increase revenue: it changes the very nature of the levy, and it raises key questions in turn.
	The principle that there should be tax relief on empty properties was outlined by the admirable Kate Barker, whom the Economic Secretary prayed in aid in support of the measure. However, it is also clear that, in her report, she made the case for a relief on business rates when properties are empty. She said:
	The principle behind empty rates relief is to create a broadly symmetrical tax, given uncertainty. When property earns a positive revenue, it is taxed; when it does not, relief is granted. This helps remove what would otherwise be a distortion.
	According to Kate Barker, therefore, the Government, by removing the existing relief, are introducing a distortion. They are levying a tax that should be designed to get revenue from activity on property that is inactive and, in the process, changing the nature of the tax itself. Why? Do the Government accept Kate Barker's argument that the change would be a distortion? If not, why not? What is the justification for the change?
	We acknowledge that, all other things being equal, the change will raise revenue. The Economic Secretary said with some pride that the amount would be 900 million. However, that tax increase raises another issue. One of the principles underpinning business rates is that, overall, the yield nationally from them should remain broadly neutral in real terms. In other words, when business rates rise, they should do so broadly in relation to the retail prices index.
	If the proposed change is made, the amount generated by business rates will increase by more than the rate of inflationeven as that has been adjusted under this Government, and even as inflation rises and the Governor of the Bank of England writes to the Chancellor warning of the consequences.
	The question that we have to ask is as follows: are the Government contemplating a balancing reduction in the burden on business? My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough asked that question earlier. Alternatively, are the Government breaking another golden rulethat business rates should not be used to make up losses elsewhere?
	The danger in using business rates as another source of revenue to make up shortfalls elsewhere was explored in the review by Sir Michael Lyons. The Economic Secretary also prayed in aid Sir Michael in support of his argument, but we should look at what he actually said. Sir Michael said that
	the national business rate is not an appropriate way to raise additional resources to fund services...particularly given the high level of taxation on property that business rates represent, by international standards.
	Are the Government therefore breaching that principle as well, and rejecting Sir Michael Lyons' advice? In his report, he made an explicit recommendation:
	The RPI cap on the national level of business rates should be retained.
	Will the Minister for Local Government spell out whether the Government agree with that principle? If so, given that the measure amounts to a tax increase, will there be compensation elsewhere in the level of business rates? I shall be very interested in the reply.
	I have asked a series of questions about the theory of the business rate, and all of them touch on the fact that, under this Government, business faces a bigger burden of taxation than ever. I now want to move to the key issue of principle at the heart of the relationship between business and Governmentthe need for certainty.
	When business is asked what it wants, the answer nearly always is that it wants certainty and stability. However, some businesses fear that this change will jeopardise all that. Many will have built the rate reliefs into their plans and accepted them in their balance sheets, and altering the reliefs could throw into uncertainty a series of developments that would bring economic growth and regeneration to parts of the country.
	Conservative Members' guiding principle is that the tax system should raise revenue and support economic growth and development wherever possible. The process of assembling suitable sites for redevelopment or of putting together the complex business deals that can bring regeneration is often complex, with many variables. Some companies might have to accept that some sites will be left vacant for longer than might be desirable in other circumstances. For instance, they might be left vacant until the correct combination of land sites and finance is in place to make a significant regeneration project truly viable.
	For some deals, the existing reliefs will have been factored into the equation already. Under the changes proposed by the Chancellor some companies will have to look again at potential regeneration projects.
	That consideration is more than theoretical. I am sure that the Economic Secretary will have read this week's  Property Week. It reported that, as a result of the measure, a company called Palmer Capital Partners had suffered what was described as an 80 million hit. The company has had to scrap a project on which it was planning to embark as a direct consequence of the proposed change. Regeneration projects and economic growth that would have taken place are now not happening. A director of the company, Alex Price, said that it could not go ahead with the plan
	because we couldn't quantify what business rates would be.
	That shows that an element of uncertainty had been introduced into the calculations, with the result that the project could no longer go ahead. I would be grateful if the Minister for Local Government let me know what assessment was made of the potential impact on current regeneration projects that were factoring the relief into their calculations. That is not merely a theoretical concern, as it goes to the heart of the active business of regeneration today.
	I have discussed the theory of business rates, and the matter of principle in connection with certainty. I turn now to some specific matters of reality, in an attempt to discern what happens on the ground when it comes to regeneration. I have a series of questions to which I hope the Minister will respond.
	First, it is appropriate that we learn from history. A very similar measure to the one being proposed was introduced in February 1974, when the Conservative Government of the day were on their way out and desperate to secure tax revenue by any means necessary. If any historical parallels suggest themselves, I am more than happy that Ministers should draw them.

Edward Balls: Look at the interest rates then.

Michael Fabricant: Interest rates have just gone up again today, to the highest level since 2001.

Michael Gove: I am grateful for the other historical comparisons being drawn to my attention.
	One consequence of the removal of rate relief introduced in 1974 was that empty properties were not proposed for development or deployed for commercial use. Instead, some properties were wrecked or left to become dilapidated so that people could escape paying rates on them altogether. What guarantees can the Minister give that the change will not create a perverse incentive? Can he assure the House that empty properties will not be turned into derelict sites rather than being proposed for productive economic use?
	Secondly, the presumption inherent in the Economic Secretary's speech was that business is deliberately keeping property idle instead of using it, because it wishes to earn that relief. Will the Minister for Local Government give us the evidence base for that assumption? Can he point to specific examples of companies that have not put sites to productive use because they prefer to earn the tax relief rather than create viable economic activity? I can understand the theoretical justification behind the Minister's argument but he produced no practical examples, from any business sector or from any part of the country, to show that landlords or owners were deliberately sitting idle to earn the relief. Production of that evidence base would certainly be useful for the House.
	The change in timings goes to the heart of the measure so, thirdly, what assessment have the Treasury and the Department for Communities and Local Government made of the genuine turnover in the business cycle? For example, the British Retail Consortium argues that it can often be 21 months between one business winding up and another being economically active on the same site. Have the Treasury and the DCLG conducted a proper survey into the speed with which vacant and void sites become not just occupied but economically active as new tenants take them over? What evidence base is there to justify the change?
	Fourthly, there is a real risk, which has been outlined by both the BRC and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, that the change will hit the areas of the country most in need of redevelopment. Property developers face the greatest risk in those areas, because by definition that is where there is the least current demand for property, whether commercial or residential. By removing the relief, the risk of making an investment in those areas increases, because one would have to be absolutely certain of securing occupancy to make the same investment viable. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact on areas most in need of regeneration of, in effect, introducing an extra cost and an extra risk for development in those areas?
	Fifthly, the change could have a particularly adverse effect on businesses in the event of a recession, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough pointed out. It will add lead to the economic pendulum, because it will mean that businesses that have to relinquish property to downsize during an economic downturn will face an additional cost just as the economic weather is turning. Has the Minister factored into his calculations the impact of an economic downturn on the commercial property market once the reliefs have gone?
	Sixthly, there is a clear disincentive for certain businesses to take on leases. Given the operation of the commercial leasehold market, taking on a lease could involve bearing additional cost and risk in the event that commercial activity means that the property becomes vacant at any point in the future. Again, what assessment has the Minister made of the likelihood of companies shying away from taking on leases because they have to take into account on their balance sheet an additional risk factor?
	Overall, I have spelled out a number of ways in which there is increased risk. My seventh, and final, point about the genuine, practical, real-time effect of the measure is that increased risk may have an effect on property values. If there is a downward effect on commercial property values as a consequence of increased risk, it may have an effect on the share price and on the dividends paid by commercial property companies. Given what has happened elsewhere in the economy, especially in equities, over the past 10 years, more and more pension fundspublic and private sectorrely on commercial property as part of their portfolio. If there is downward pressure on the balance sheets of companies that operate in the commercial property sphere and if it has a knock-on effect on the portfolios of pension funds, what is that effect likely to be? What calculation has been made? We know from the past that there can be, and often are, dangerous unintended consequences of changes made by the present Chancellor that have a knock-on effect on pension funds and the capacity of individuals who have saved to receive an appropriate rate of return?
	I would like answers on those seven practical points, as well as the two theoretical matters that I mentioned. I look forward to the Minister's clarification before the debate concludes.

Vincent Cable: As this is a pre-legislative phase, where we are asking broad questions rather than making forceful assertions about legislation that we have not yet seenI agree with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) that that is the best way to approach the measureI want to start by asking about the process.
	The Economic Secretary based his presentation on the Lyons recommendations, and although it is certainly true that the Lyons report recommended precisely what the Government want to proceed with, that recommendation does not quite fit with his recommendation in a later paragraph, which is not a criticism of the Government but of the report. In paragraph 8.6, Lyons recommended:
	The Government should conduct a review of exemptions and reliefs to consider the scope for removing inappropriate subsidies and distortions, and to simplify the system.
	There was thus a firm recommendation, but also a recommendation for a review, so it was not clear how the two would hang together.
	Having read through the relevant paragraphs of Lyons, it is fair to say that although he made a firm recommendation, on which the Government have acted, his arguments were more equivocal and balanced than those in the Minister's presentationI know that the hon. Gentleman takes economic arguments seriously. Lyons called in aid Tony Atkinson and Stiglitz, who made a good theoretical case for keeping empty property relief, because of the risk-sharing problems. So, there are clear arguments on both sides, which is all the more reason to have proper consultation and consideration.
	The other reason why the processwhatever the outcomeneeds to be carefully staged is that the feedback that the Government have had from both interested and disinterested bodies is not clear cut either. The Federation of Small Businesses is quite supportive of what the Government said, but it made the interesting recommendation that the legislation should take account of the fact that some businesses are making a genuine effort to fill their property. It is not clear how the legislation will accommodate that. The Campaign to Protect Rural England was, again, broadly supportive of what the Government are trying to do, but it said that the Government must undertake the measure in conjunction with changes to the VAT regime to make it more attractive to improve property. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the British Retail Consortium were much more critical. The first issue is about the process and why the Government cannot undertake a process of consultation over the next year or so, which is what Lyons appeared to envisage.
	My second set of questions is about the revenue implications. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath has suggested that, whether we call this measure a withdrawal of state aid or a tax, there clearly are major revenue implications. That may indeed be right. First, I would like to be clear what the implications are. In his speech, the Minister referred to various offsets. I want to be clear whether he envisages a full whack of 950 million on the commercial property sector or whether there are any offsets and, if so, what they are.
	My other question is about the behavioural implications of the change. I think that the Government are arguing that the measure is necessary both to raise revenue and to change business behaviour to make it more efficient. There is nothing wrong with that. In the context of environmental taxation, we argueas do the Governmentthat it is possible to raise revenue and change behaviour at the same time. There is nothing wrong with the argument, but I want to be clear what assumptions the Government are making. Lyons implies that the cost of empty property rate relief is 1.3 billion. The Government say in the Red Book that they will raise an additional 950 million. Does that mean that the difference is accounted for by improvements in the utilisation of commercial property? Are the Government assuming that commercial property use will improve by a factor of a quarter? Or are the figures completely unconnected?
	A related question is: who will pay the tax? As we know, with all business taxation the cost is shifted in one direction or the other. There is an assumption that the tax will be paid by inefficient landlords and over-exuberant speculators, but is that in fact the case? We must assume that, in most cases, the increased taxation of commercial property will, at some point, be paid for by occupiers. It could be paid for by the landlords' other occupiers or in the form of longer leases.

Stewart Jackson: The hon. Gentleman touches on an important point. Does he agree that the Government have not looked at the macro-economic impact in respect of the cumulative impact on inflation that this change may well have? As he concedes, the cost will be passed on in the form of higher rents and service charges, which could potentially cancel out any overall benefits to the economy.

Vincent Cable: Whether the measure will lead to more inflation or to less utilisation of capacity elsewhere in the economy is not clear, but the hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that there are knock-on effects. One that has not been referred to and that is potentially rather important is the fact that a large chunk of commercial property is owned by pension funds. Eventually, the measure will feed through into reduced returns for pension funds. There will be a hit on pension funds. Of course, they have had other hitssome of which have been much more important than thisbut it would be useful to have some acknowledgement from the Government and some estimate of what the measure will ultimately cost the owners, who are institutional finance bodies.
	I have several questions about such a measure's possible impact on the market. I understand the basic problem involving empty commercial property and have a couple of anecdotes to illustrate it. An appalling derelict Co-op completely blights the whole of one of my local high streets. As far as I can establish, the property has been sitting empty for many years simply because of the lethargy and incompetence of the Co-op management. If a change to the tax regime would persuade the company to do something with the property, that would be welcome. However, we all know of shops in our local shopping centres that were not viable and had to be closed by the occupiers. Those people are often desperate for planning approval to convert the property into a housing development, but local planners refuse to give that because it would change the nature of the shopping centre. Are we going to penalise those shopkeepers? How will they be accommodated following the change?

Anne Main: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that people who wish to change a commercial building to a different form of development, such as housing, have to market it actively for a considerable time to show that the property has no commercial use. Unless the Minister tells us differently, I assume that such people would be paying business rates during all that time. The planning process can often hold things up for a considerable time, so several years could pass while there was a debate about the matter, or even during the assembling of sites.

Vincent Cable: The hon. Lady is absolutely right and makes the point that I was trying to raise. The Federation of Small Businesses asks what we will do about commercial occupiers who are genuinely trying to do something about the utilisation of their properties. Should they be treated in exactly the same way as companies that wilfully keep their properties unoccupied, or do so due to incompetence? As far as I can tell, that distinction will not be captured. It is possible that the distinction cannot be made because it can be difficult to legislate for such things. However, we should realise that there is a distinction in the real world.
	Several issues are being raised by representatives of the property industry. We understand that some of them are self-interested, but it is worth quoting the British Retail Consortium, which has considered the matter primarily not from the perspective of property developers, but in the context of its interest in the retail sector. It comments unequivocally:
	The BRC believes that there has been a fundamental misunderstanding of the mechanics of the property market and this reform will, as a result, fail to achieve its objective of bringing empty property into use.
	Leaving aside the particular problems of retailers, I have received several representations from people who are interested in industrial development in parts of the country that have a regeneration problem. For example, an email that I received from a group in Wales said:
	Here in South Wales we have a number of redundant large industrial buildings. They are a legacy from when previous administrations enticed overseas manufacturers to set up here with offers of cheap land, cheap labour and big grants...By introducing a new rates liability for empty industrial buildings in particular, we fear that...property entrepreneurs will not be prepared to take the risk and these buildings will crumble and die.
	Unless the measures are properly thought through, they will have an impact on entrepreneurial risk taking and development in parts of the country that are badly in need of regeneration.
	Let us consider the situation in Yorkshire, which is the part of the country that the Economic Secretary represents. I received a message from an organisation that referred to the fact that King Sturge's UK industrial and distribution floorspace today reportthat is a bit of a mouthfulsays that almost 50 per cent. of all industrial development is speculative. It said that the measure was bound to have an impact on business behaviour and cited rather marginal Yorkshire townsHalifax, Keighley, Hull, Goole, Barnsley and Grimsbythat are trying to attract speculative industrial development, yet will struggle to attract the amount of industrial investment that they get now after the introduction of the measure. The people in the trade who are making these assertions might well have an interest in opposing the Government's proposal, but it would be useful and appropriate for us to have an understanding of whether the Government have made an assessment of those possible effects.
	Finally, I have a series of questions about how the measure would be implemented. One of them relates to a point that I have already made, and to the issue that the hon. Member for St. Albans (Anne Main) raised in her intervention: what will happen to those companies that are genuinely trying hard to market their property and to utilise it, but that are none the less caught by the new provisions? That was the issue raised by the Federation of Small Businesses.
	My second question relates to local discretion. The Economic Secretary mentioned that there is a bigger issue to do with whether commercial rates should be localised. As it happens, my colleagues and I want to push that idea as far as it can go, but the current controversy raises the question of how much local discretion should be allowed under the provisions that the Government are proposing. For example, would people in a depressed part of south Wales be allowed to implement the measure over a different time frame and in a different way from people in a more prosperous part of the country? Will local discretion be allowed, and if so, how will it be applied? There are many quite major issues to consider. At the end of the day, the provision may well be sensibleit certainly has endorsement from some authoritative sourcesbut it clearly needs a lot more thought and a great deal more consultation.

Robert Key: I am tempted to say, What a splendid day to bury bad news, but I do not want to go there because I want Ministers to listen carefully to what I have to say and to take it seriously. So far, this has been an urban debate about the impact of the change, but I want to change the focus and consider the impact on the countryside and the greater proportion of the United Kingdom's land area. In other words, I want to focus on the impact on rural economies.
	We need to start from the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) made, which is that the measure is really no better than a window tax. It is a revenue-raising tax, and it is none the worse for thatGovernments of all colours introduce taxes. They need the money and it is amazing, really, that we have avoided the measure thus far, but as a grab on a particularly vulnerable area, the proposal is not much better intellectually than the window tax. Under the window tax, windows were blocked up and light was kept out of the lives of hundreds of people across the country, and I fear that the proposal might have the same impact.
	The Economic Secretary pointed out, fairly, that he is making special provision for what he called low-demand areas. Of course, those are not just the assisted areas to which he referred. Indeed, it is only nibbling at the edges to talk about land that qualifies for remediation relief. He referred us to the planning White Paper, and I want to talk about the impact on, and interaction with, planning. It is important to realise that a vacant property tax hike will hit the rural economy. It will discourage the farming sector from diversifying and from changing old farm buildings into business units.
	The Country Land and Business Association has commented that there will be an impact on rural business. It says that the measure will
	slow down and reduce the overall growth of the rural economy.
	Interestingly, it estimates that the measure will reduce the tax take for the Treasury over time. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath mentioned the consequences of having derelict property, which we experienced in the 1970sproperty that is not capable of beneficial occupation is exempt from business rates, and I fear that we could find ourselves staring that same situation in the face again if we are not careful. I am sure that we all wish to avoid that.
	The National Farmers Union also has reservations. It points out that the situation in urban areas is different from that in rural areas and that both converted buildings and new build
	can stand empty for months awaiting a suitable tenant in some rural areas.
	There is a fair consensus on that point, but I want to back up my arguments with three cases taken from my constituency that illustrate my fears. The first case concerns hard-to-let village premises. Anyone with a rural constituency will know the problem of a pub closing and the owner applying to convert it into a house. The village usually reacts by setting up some sort of co-operative venture to try to buy the pub and run it. The problem is that if people do not buy their beer in the pub, it does not matter who owns itif it does not make a profit, it is going to close. There are implications, too, for the village shop and post office, which are in a similar situation.
	As someone who spent a very happy nine years living near South Newton in my constituency, I was familiar with the post office in that village. However, it did not thrive. It was run by a wonderful coupleMr. and Mrs. Hutchinson. Heather was born in the village, so there was no question of a lack of loyalty to the village. However, the Hutchinsons decided that the time had come to retire, so they tried very hard to let the property. As far back as 2001, in fact, they tried to do so. They put the property on the market for six months, as required before a change of use, but they did not make a sale. They waited and they eventually found a tenant. They invested 14,000 to adapt their property so that it could be used as a hairdressing salon, which involved a change to A1 use. Sadly, however, the tenants' business failed, so the Hutchinsons were left with nothing.
	Mr. and Mrs. Hutchinson took professional advice again and they submitted an application to the planning authority. The planning committee agreed, but the regulatory committee threw out the application. They have now been told, some seven years after the original decision, that they must go back to square one. They have spent almost 20,000 because of the planning system, which impacts on such matters, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Anne Main) rightly said. I referred the matter to the head of development services and asked which planning policy was causing apparent distortion in the market. It was Salisbury district planning policy PS3, which says:
	The change of use of premises within settlements that are currently used, or have been used for retailing, as a public house or for providing community facilities central to the economic and or social life of the settlement, will only be permitted where the applicant can prove that the current or previous use is no longer viable.
	That is the justification for the distortion. The fear is that as a consequence of the proposals, in the intervening period after the planning authority, acting on behalf of the local community, has decided that people should not be allowed to stop a shop being a shop if no one wants to buy anything there, the owners must pay business rates on the property for years. It is not their faultit is because the planning system has introduced a distortion in the market allocation of resources. That is a very important issue that I hope Ministers will consider.
	My second case concerns redundant farm buildings. Late last year, my constituent, Philip Kitson of Manor farm in Chilmark, referred me to a problem with a unit in his farm buildings. He has wonderful farm buildings, but they are completely useless for farming. They were built in the early 19th century, and one could not get a quad bike in there, let alone a modern tractor. The Kitsons did what the Government wanted and diversified. They sought to convert the property, and they did so professionally and successfully. However, tenants move on, so they were left with a buildingin this case, a B1 workshop and office premises. They therefore had to find money for business rates for an unoccupied building . Mr. Kitson pointed out to me:
	We are a farming business, not a property company, and have no alternative sources of income to offset any loss of rental income...we have invested a considerable amount of time and money renovating buildings for rental which have rarely been empty.
	The district council has benefited hugely, at no risk to itself, because those buildings are bringing in business rates.
	In the end, the matter went to the desk of the Minister for Local GovernmentI am pleased that he is in the Chamber todayand he and I have been in correspondence for some months. Referring to the Lyons report, he said to me in a letter of 17 April this year:
	We understand that these reforms will increase the liability on owners like Mr Kitson. However, as the Chancellor's announcement made clear, the purpose of reform is to enhance the supply of commercial property, reducing rents and improving access for new and existing firms. Downward pressure on rents will have significant benefits for UK business and wider UK competitiveness.
	That is not what the local market says in my constituency, where there is already overcapacity. It is all very well saying that that might be the impact in urban areas, but in scattered rural communities in south-west Wiltshire there is already overcapacity in such units, and I fear that the measure will make matters worse. Can we be quite sure that when Ministers are working out the process and the machinery for introducing the change, they take due account of the need to be careful about rural proofing the measure? The least they should do is introduce it over a number of years and not say, From 1 April 2008, wham! Bang! You're going to have to pay the bill.
	My third example is a very particular example.

Edward Balls: I want to understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. I am worried that the point he is making is not market-based and is more dirigiste. When he uses the term overcapacity, he means properties that are unused. Are they unused because there is no demand or because the rent is too high? Are we not looking for a way to get the price down so that they can be put back into use and there can be more activity?

Robert Key: That is an entirely fair point. Without getting into either endogenous growth theories or Marxism, I would point out that the Minister is right to ask the question, but the answer is no. The problem is overcapacity, not rents that are too high. I will illustrate that with my next example.
	We have a large number of former military establishments in my constituency and in Wiltshire as a whole. One of them is the former royal naval armaments depot at Dean Hill, which was built in 1938 and became a major armaments depot, storing under the chalk hills enormous quantities of arms for the Royal Navy from Portsmouth, and latterly for the RAF as well after the closure of RAF Chilmark, which was another establishment that was redundant to the needs of the Ministry of Defence.
	The area is hugesome 500 acres with 1,600 sq m of office space. It has a variety of business unitsmore than 40 of themand 24 vaults cut into the chalk offering more than 9,000 cu m of high quality dry, secure storage. That is where the bombs and depth charges were kept. The problem is how the Ministry of Defence disposes of property. It is part of the Chancellor's remit to persuade the MOD to get rid of redundant property.
	After the property had been empty for years, a splendid company has taken over the site, bought it from the Ministry of Defence, and is successfully converting it into very attractive office and industrial premises in a wonderful environment, with a site of special scientific interest on the spot. I cannot speak warmly enough of the effort of Mr. Richard Parry and his company, who have taken a substantial risk. Having taken over 500 acres from the MOD with all those buildings and facilities, which they had expected to be able to bring into use over a number of yearswith the agreement of the planning authorities in order to avoid overdevelopment, too much traffic on rural lanes in south-east Wiltshire and Hampshire and so onthey could face a crushing liability for business rates if the measure is suddenly introduced now.
	That will dissuade investors like Mr. Parry. They simply will not do it. The holding costs of the property will be too great. What about valuation? The district valuers already value Ministry of Defence estates, but they put them on a low value because they are of military use or are not used at all. To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath, they are not producing business activity or generating wealth, so they currently do not qualify for taxation. What about the district valuer now? He has been to Dean Hill park and assessed individual buildings. As they are brought into use, the district valuer assesses them and the owners rightly start paying their business rate.
	What will happen in future? We need to be sure that Ministers have thought about that. Will they suddenly create an extra army of district valuers who can go round to all these Ministry of Defence sites and revalue hundreds of buildings and other facilities? Have they got the staff to do it? I guess not. When will the clock start ticking? Will people have to start paying this new business rate on 1 April next year or six months afterwards? Perhaps the Minister has not thought that question through yet, but I would be grateful if he could answer it.
	We see here, once again, the need for rural proofing. I wonder what the Ministry of Defence will say about this, given that the defence budget is still strapped, despite a modest increase in cash terms. The pressure on it is enormous. Will it be liable to pay the new business rates on all its empty industrial properties, given that it no longer enjoys Crown exemption? I would be grateful if the Minister could answer that, and I dare say his colleagues in the MOD would like an answer too.
	I have tried to draw the House's attention to some of the problems that will affect everybody in rural areas, from large investors to very small family businesses, as well as farming communities. If we must have a window tax, let us make sure that it does not keep the light out.

Anne Main: My hon. Friends and I have a lot of questions about this proposal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) said, we all have our own particular set of problems that it will draw to the surface. I should like to give the Minister a few illustrations from my constituency. It is a city, not a rural area, but it has its own set of unique issues that will be exacerbated or affected by perverse consequences.
	One example is the West Hall site in Napsbury, formerly the site of a hospital. It has many buildings that do not come under the national listings but are locally listed as having importance. The site has been designated for housing, but many such applications get stuck in the system for a long time, and rightly so according to local residents, who do not want bad development in St. Albans. While they accept the need to have housing on the site, they also feel that a degree of caution should be exerted. They do not want to end up with 37 flats all squeezed into one commercial building; that is also seen as unacceptable by the local authority. Being stuck in the planning system can be a good or a bad thing. The problem is that we are not sure whether the proposals will make matters better or worse.
	Another example is the former Evershed's commercial print works site, which has been vacant for a considerable period. It was redesignated for housing, and housing permission was sought and obtained. However, it has since been sold on to Tesco, which is trying to develop it as a commercial site again. We would prefer that it remained designated for housing. I am worried that the rush to try to make it a commercial development will stand in the way of local people who would rather see housing on what is a truly sustainable site, and that Tesco will try to get its big building up as quickly as possible before local people can exercise a degree of pressure on their local authority to ensure that the local district plan is upheld and housing is built there. Can the Minister tell me at what point the commercial building rates will be paid? Will they have to be paid until development occurs that changes the site's use?
	On the London road in St. Albans, we have a listed cinemathe Odeon, which has an art deco faade. Unfortunately, it went out of use some 11 years ago. People are desperate to keep that landmark property in St. Albans. It has been stuck in the planning system for 11 years. Perhaps it will be turned into some form of housing development, but local people welcome the fact that there is no rush to do that because they hope to bring it back into commercial use as a cinema, which we do not have in St. Albans. There is huge support for that but, because the building is small, it is difficult to find somebody who is prepared to take it on. Delicate negotiations are going on all the time behind the scenes, conducted by those who want a cinema in St. Albans.
	However, 11 years have passed. At one point, the decision was held up speculatively and then applications for housing were constantly refused. However, local people do not want things to be rushed. They do not want the cinema, with its characterful faade, which could be revitalised, to be quickly put to another use because of the commercial rates that suddenly have to be paid on it.
	There are flip sides. Good results can be achieved through bringing buildings back into use, but I am worried that the process may mean the loss of the slow pace of change that local people welcome when they want to ensure that historic sites and buildings are not suddenly put to commercial use or demolished, with the site used for housing. We need answers, and I believe that the planning system will play a crucial role.
	A roof tax has been mentioned. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury and many reports stated, there is a concern that it may mean that the roofs are simply removed from buildings, resulting in some vandalism. The Odeon cinema still has its roof. The vandals have picked away at it, but it remains intact. I would hate to allow commercial vandalism, resulting in the removal of the roof, simply because people who are suddenly in the position of having to pay tax on a building want to ensure that it is useless, and thus take away all hope from local people.
	Estate agents, such as Cluttons, who have an interest in the matter, have expressed some views. I would like some answers to their concerns and to ascertain whether the Minister has conducted any assessments. People already challenge the Valuation Office Agency's level of rating. Several cases of buildings, which currently pay only 50 per cent. but seek a nil value, have been heard before the tribunal office. If empty commercial property owners now have to appeal against rating assessments and any new categories that are introduced, surely the appeals will create an increased administrative burden, as people in the nil rating bracket find themselves in a new rating bracket. Has any assessment been made of the extra staff that the Valuation Office Agency may need and the extra costs that it will incur through the additional burden?
	I should like some clarity at some point in future, if not todayI understand that we are exploring the matter todayabout buildings that might be considered exempt. I should like to ensure that the many historic buildings such as churches, which may not have charitable status and could simply be landmarks, do not face an extra tax burden. I am sure that it is difficult to identify the ownership of some buildings. I know of a house in St. Albans that was caught up in that sort of confusion for some time. It was eventually compulsorily purchased. I am also concerned to ensure that a retrospective charge is not levied against families who are unaware that they own and may have some ongoing interest in a building, which suddenly comes to their notice. There are some complex probate cases and I wonder whether the Minister has taken them into account.
	We are being asked to vote for a pig in poke if we are not absolutely sure that all the questions that my hon. Friends have asked today are considered. We do not want properties to remain empty. The Economic Secretary made the valid point that that makes no environmental sense, and I agree with him. However, it does not make environmental sense to rush towards removing roofs or damaging buildings in some way, yet such acts may be the perverse consequences of the proposals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury said, it makes no environmental sense to charge people who are genuinely trying to market a building.
	In areas where there is a commercial property, people often have to fight the rigmarole of a local district plan to prove that the building no longer constitutes viable commercial premises. That can take such a long time that some poor family or small business could be left with an enormous charge on a property that has been incurred through no fault of their own. That is perverse.
	I welcome the exploration of the idea of bringing back buildings into use, because St. Albans is very tight on space. It is a matter of record that I feel that we are put under enormous pressure to build and develop in St. Albans, but we also consequently have commercial premises sandwiched in areas that we do not want to be vandalised. We want to see buildings brought back into use, but where that is not feasible, we want to ensure that time is spent considering the best uses for them and that nobody pushes through a quick commercial use order to avoid paying any form of development tax.
	I would welcome the Minister's consideration of all the points raised in the debate, and particularly of whether, when a change is made under the planning systemas on the Evershed sites, for exampleit should apply when planning is granted or when development occurs. Those vagaries will not provide much confidence or support for the measure.
	I agree with some of the business-related comments that have been made, as the proposal is seen as a stealth raid grab. If it is seen as a stealth raid grab with good consequences, there may be some support for it; but if it is seen as a stealth raid grab with perverse consequences, I feel that many Conservative Members will view it as a move too far. Given that the Federation of Small Businesses also has many concerns, I am sure that we are going to hear a lot more detailed comments about the measure in the future.

Stewart Jackson: If I may pre-empt the Chancellor and beg the House's indulgence, I would like to congratulate the Economic Secretary on his inevitable promotion in approximately seven weeks' time.
	It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Anne Main) and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Robert Key). They were perhaps far too polite to state the obvious and place this particular proposal in context by observing that it is one of 111 stealth taxes that the Government have imposed over the past 10 years. It represents the big clunking fist approach to commercial property, and we are no doubt going to see a lot more of it over the next few years.
	This proposal has all the characteristics of the stealth taxes that we have learned to know and love. It is a consummate stealth tax because it is typical of the sleight-of-hand taxes that we have become used to over the past 10 years. It is sneaky. It has been announced only in the last few months, but its effects will not come into force until April 2008. Of course, it does not appear in the Finance Bill, but has been brought before the House through a Ways and Means resolution. It is also ill considered and damaging, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury eloquently explained, it will have unintended consequences. It is indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans said, a straightforward tax grab, netting the Treasury 1.85 billion over the next two years. The proposal is, of course, dressed up in euphemistic language, when it is described as modernising empty property relief. That is rather like the Prime Minister saying that Labour's local government election results were a springboard for a general election victory, when we all know that it was more like a belly-flop.
	We can see a dichotomy in the Government's treatment of private and commercial property. This is a Government who have entrenched the principle of holding capital by way of propertyforgive me if I sound rather like the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), who is the Minister's parliamentary neighbourwhen foreign nationals who are non-domiciled in this country own huge portfolios of property, which are left empty while people are left homeless and more people than ever before in the past 10 years are on waiting lists or in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. There are 6,000 of those people in my own constituency. At the same time, the Government seek to penalise and disadvantage British business people with this particular tax grab.
	As I said when I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), this has been a 50 billion tax grab over the past 10 years, and there has been no corresponding offsetting tax reduction, as expounded by the Treasury. Indeed, small businesses took a significant hit in tax increases in the Budget.
	The proposal will have the effect of pushing up existing business rents and adding to inflationary pressures. It will distort the commercial property market by driving up service charges as well as rents, as a result of businesses quite properly attempting to recover empty rates. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors describes the proposal as
	purely a revenue raising exercise with no thought of the potential consequences.
	The measure will also inevitably lead to a rise in on-costs in respect of rating appeals and valuation tribunal cases. That will incur significant costs across the economy. A further consequence will be a policy of deliberately damaging buildings, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans pointed out. Of course, we would not condone that, but we have to accept that it happens. It will be an unintended consequence of this tax policy.
	The policy demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of the fluctuations and cycles of the commercial property market. No business wants to keep a commercial property empty, but the mechanisms and vagaries of supply and demand mean that it is an inevitable feature of the market that, owing to commercial considerations or to reasons such as time lag, some properties will sometimes be empty.
	The policy will do nothing to encourage local regeneration. I know that that is a subject dear to the heart of the Minister for Local Government. It was interesting that the Economic Secretary skipped past my direct question about the consultation to ascertain whether regional development agencies and urban regeneration companies wholly supported the proposals. The corollary of this policy is that entrepreneurs will take far fewer risks when investing in difficult areasareas that find it difficult to attract niche entrepreneurswhich will affect the creation of jobs, businesses and, obviously, the tax take for the Treasury.
	In 2005, the business rates revaluation penalised small, medium and large business by tightening the grounds for appeal and decreasing the reduction in rate bills for firms whose rateable value had fallen. That was another typical sleight-of-hand policy. The Government are ignoring the underlying factors relating to the fact that some commercial premises are sometimes empty for longer than is desirable. This can happen, for example, as a result of restrictive alienation clauses preventing sub-letting or assignment. I do not think that the Minister mentioned that, although I might have missed it.

Anne Main: My hon. Friend prompts me to inquire whether the Minister has taken into account restrictive covenants on buildings. It is sometimes almost impossible to find exactly the tenant prescribed in such a covenant. Might that also be an issue?

Stewart Jackson: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point, and I agree with her.
	Why does the Treasury seem to be at odds with the voluntary leasing business premises code that was produced by the Department for Communities and Local Government? That code has not yet had a chance to bed in, and it has not been given adequate time to work.
	I want to return to regeneration. I speak not from a rural perspective, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, but from an urban one. My constituency has an ambitious regeneration programme for the next 15 years. It is highly dependent for jobs on logistics, warehousing and transportation. It also has pockets of considerable urban deprivationPeterborough has three of the poorest wards in the eastern regionand there is a great need for more employment. The proposals do not provide sufficient incentive to business to be entrepreneurial and to create new businesses. I am talking not about mass-market chains but about the niche businesses needed to create new jobs and to help the area to go from strength to strength.
	As I mentioned earlier, the evidence of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors does not necessarily support the Minister's argument:
	This is a repeat of the situation in the 1970s when an empty rate was introduced in the form of penal rating surcharge. However, no new lettings were created by the surcharge and it led to the deliberate vandalising of property, such as removing roofs, in order to avoid rate liability. If there had been a consultation on this topic the potential impact could have been considered.
	The message from the RICS is that there has not been appropriate consultation.
	I shall finish with some key questions to the Minister, and I hope that he is able to allay my concerns and answer all my hon. Friends' questions. Is he confident that regeneration will not be affected by the change? What steps does he think it prudent to take to prevent deliberate vandalism of empty property? Will he consider the suggestion of the Federation of Small Businesses that exemptions should be put in place for firms that have made a demonstrable effort, even though it might be unsuccessful, to fill their property? Finally, why is there no recognition of the regional differences in the commercial property market across England and Wales?
	To conclude, the tax change will do nothing to make the property market more dynamic. It will stifle efforts to regenerate some of our most deprived areas. I fearcall me cynicalthat it is a good old-fashioned tax grab. Ministers need to think hard again about whether they should proceed with the proposal.

Phil Woolas: We have had a good, short debate. I commend hon. Members on the thoroughness of their research. The points have been made reasonably and, in response to the tribute to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, eloquently and authoritatively. It is right and proper that we reply as fully as possible to the points made.  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) on the Opposition Whip's Bench is teasing me; I am not going down that route.
	The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) questioned the process that is taking place. The Ways and Means resolution arises from the Budget and, being a matter of local taxation, cannot be considered in the Finance Bill, as would be the case with other Budget measures. It is also worth pointing out that I considered whether there was appropriate scope for the measure in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, but it is specifically not a finance Bill. We have therefore facilitated debate through the resolution and, to allay Members' fears, there will be further debate on Second Reading. Although it is a finance measure, there will be consideration of the detail of the Bill in the other place, should the House pass the resolution today, as I hope that it will. If I am not able to answer all the points that have been reasonably raised, I commit the Government to attempting to do so, should the House pass the resolution, in further consideration.
	An important point has been made about the possible impact of the measure, and constituency Members of Parliament have done their research. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) in particular has researched the possible impact on the three examples that he gave. The law of unintended consequences bedevils legislation, so we must give the matter proper consideration.
	The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) set out a logical argument based on theory, principle and practice. Let me deal with the theory first. Non-domestic rates are not a tax on business activity, but a tax on property. The domestic rate is partly a tax on property, for property services, and partly a tax on individuals. Although Members have referred to business rates today, the motion refers to non-domestic rates. That answers the points made by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Anne Main), who sought exceptions.
	As for the hon. Gentleman's points about the principle, there is a misunderstandingI forgive him for perpetuating itthat bedevils the debate about non-domestic rates, and I am grateful to Sir Michael Lyons for shedding light on it. Many people assume that the retail prices index cap on non-domestic rates is a cap on the individual bill paid. Non-domestic rates, unlike council tax, are based on the rental rather than the capital value, although some argue that the system should be different. In considering the impact of this measure, therefore, we must consider its impact during the two periods before and after revaluation.
	That pulls the rug from under the feet of those who say that this is a smash-and-grab raid on businesses. The intention of the measure is to decrease rents across areas. By increasing the supply of available premises, it will decrease rents after revaluation. In this country there are regular revaluations every five years, as there have been since the system was introduced. It is worth noting that revaluation for the purpose of non-domestic rates proceeds without a murmur in the House or a column inch in the newspapers, in stark contrast to the hundreds of thousands of column inches devoted to the non-revaluation of domestic properties. That, to my mind, justifies my policy of not proceeding with the domestic revaluation: goodness knows how many column inches would be spilled if such a revaluation took place.
	The principle of the RPI cap is clearly there, and I restate our commitment to it. That is important, because it will decrease rents in the future. The hon. Gentleman assumes, however, that it is a simple cap on the yield. In fact, the cap is on the increase in the business rate multiplierwhat we all know as the penny in the pound. We used to call it rateable value, and I think we should reintroduce the term because more people understand it. I make that commitment as well: I shall not use the horrible phrase business rate multiplier again.
	The exception arises at the time of the revaluation, when overall rateable values increase if that is the way in which the market is going. The multiplier is adjusted, and the resulting increase in yield is pegged to inflation. That has been the case throughout the system of non-domestic rates, and it is a very strong pro-business measure. It deals with the point that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath rightly made about general stability. We must remember why uniform business rates were introduced in the first place. I think it right for me to concede that my party got it wrong before that. Our actions led to instability, and were bad for business.
	As for the practice, the hon. Gentleman asked a number of questionsmore than he said he had. I counted 10, although he said there had been seven. In any event, I shall try to answer them as best I can.
	The accusation has been made that pension funds may be damaged because they hold property portfolios. Empty properties are only a small part of pension fund portfolios, and properties that are occupied will benefit in the medium and long term from the reduced rents that will result from the pincer effect that I have described. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point in respect of the short term either. The actively managed property portfolios experience low levels of voids. However, the most important determinant for growth in yields to pension companies and other investors in property is demand from the wider economy. I do not dismiss the point that has been made, but I always think that it is a good debating point to look at one side of the equation. The argument about pension fund tax misses the point that corporation tax was reduced at the same time; from the overall point of view, that must also be considered.
	I hope that I have answered the point about consultation and proper parliamentary scrutiny. The next question that was asked was about the alleged failure to consult on what is an appropriate rate-free period. A three-month rate-free period currently exists, and we will not change thatthere is certainty in that regard. The Kate Barker review found that there is no structural difference in the propensity of properties in different sectors to fall empty. None the less, we will provide an additional three months of rate-free period for industrial property, returning the total rate-free period to six months, so there is movement in that direction. We can debate these matters.
	It has been argued that there is no evidence to justify the making of the reforms that alter the rate and the length of the rate-free period and that there is also no evidence of what their exact nature will be. That was also addressed by Kate Barker and Sir Michael Lyons. As has been said, she carried out a fairly thorough assessment of the case for reform, and so did Michael Lyons. That is part of the evidence base that we are using in bringing forward our proposals. However, I concede that there is a question to do with balance in respect of some of them.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked questions that perhaps anticipated an economic downturn should his party ever form the Government; the DNA and mindset of the Conservative party is to plan for recessions, as that is what its experience shows happens. The Bill will provideI appreciate that Members have not seen it, so I do not criticise those who asked about thisa new power for the Secretary of State to reduce the rate for empty properties from the new level of 100 per cent. of the occupied rate back to a minimum of 50 per cent. There is some flexibility in that measure. The hon. Gentleman should not now rush away and write in his newspaper column that the Government plan for a recession; there is always a danger of that happening when we talk about introducing prudent and cautious measures. It is important that measures such as this one are not locked in stone.
	The hon. Member for Salisbury referred to the Valuation Office Agency. It is already the case that an empty property is valued, so we do not anticipate a surge, or even a blip, in the work of the VOA. Its work is already part of the tax base. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath will knowperhaps from reading lurid headlines, which I think of as scaremongeringthat we are computerising the valuation process.  [Interruption.] Well, it is the central premise of the Conservative argument against our policy that we are doing that, so it is not fair of Members to criticise this point. We are successfully computerising the valuation process. The VOA has been successful at non-domestic rates revaluation, which has passed without a comment; I have been surprised about that. That is a reasonable point to make.
	The question was also asked why this measure will be implemented in 2008, rather than in 2010. Lyons' recommendation was of course linked to the revaluation process, and we propose to introduce the measure in 2008 because we believe that its benefitsI do not mean just the increased revenue, which I shall come to in a momentare required now. As my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary explained, relatively speaking we have very high rents. In my view and as the  Financial Times reported this morning, it is daft that the taxpayer effectively subsidises empty properties, given that we have among the highest rents in the world. When my constituents heard that rental values in Manchester are higher than in Manhattan, they were surprised, as was I. So I checked it out and it proved to be true.
	On the question of certainty, I appreciate the point that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath was making about the micro level. However, stability will be provided at the macro level because, as evidence shows, if the policy is successfulas we of course expect it to beit will have a beneficial effect in the medium to long term. I have already dealt with the point that he made about the Lyons report and increased revenue from empty properties.
	Members also asked about assessing the location of empty properties and whether there will be differential effects. It is clear that the policy needs to be examined in relation to areas such as the cities of London, Manchester and Birmingham, and Slough, which my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary mentioned. Analysis of England by region and by value shows that, unsurprisingly, the north-east and the south-west have the lowest figures.
	Some important points have been made about regeneration areas, and I was grateful for the recognition earlier of my own commitment to regeneration; I did indeed not only read the available evidence, but consulted some of the urban regeneration organisations. Renovation funds are available in areas with Department of Trade and Industry assisted area status. However, compared with areas such as the City of London, a major obstacle in regeneration areas is of course the availability of land. We do not believe that there will be a negative impact on business confidence as a result of this measure. For example, redevelopment and regeneration schemes in Liverpool are already making available 8.2 billion for development, with planning permission already granted. That is not related, except in a tiny way, to the empty property issue. I concede that one has to consider the impact in different parts of the country, and Members have made strong points about the potential impact on their local economies. If I cannot deal with those points today, I hope to be able to do so on Second Reading, should the House resolve this motion today.
	The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) called for further consultation, which is clearly desirable. However, we in this country sometimes suffer from consultation fatigue, and Opposition Members have criticised us for having too many independent reviews. One cannot have one's cake and eat it, but the point about consultation, particularly parliamentary consultation, is a fair one. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the twin objectives of raising revenue and changing behaviour, both of which are indeed objectives in this policy area. Such measures are part of the revenue-raising measures in the Budget. They have to be taken in the round, alongside decreases in corporation tax over the yearsand, of course, the most successful stewardship of the economy in our country's history over the past 10 years. I shall say that especially loudly today. However loudly or softly I say it does not change the fact that it is true, and I wish that people would sometimes listen to the argument and not who is making it.
	The hon. Member for Twickenham asked about the 1.3 billion in Sir Michael Lyons' report and the 950 million. It is important to point out that in our assumptions we build in a 900 million figure in year two, recognising that the impact overall will be to lower rents. That addresses the point that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) rather scepticallyI do not say cynicallyraised. I think that he called the measure a stealth tax or a smash-and-grab raid. It is not. It is part of the revenue-raising measures, but it will also have the desirable consequence of changing behaviour, as the hon. Member for Twickenham pointed out.
	We want to bring empty properties into the market. It is ridiculous that companies leave properties empty, whether intentionally or not. I do not have examples of companies that deliberately set out to do that, and I suspect that it would take a private detective agency

Edward Balls: Property Week.

Phil Woolas: My hon. Friend reminds me that  Property Week has looked into the issue. The example of Palmer Capital PartnersI take it that that is Palmer, not Palma as in the capital of Majorcawas given. I am not making an accusation, but for the figure to be valid the company had to assume that the property would be vacant. I do not suggest that that was that company's deliberate policy, but there are many examples of companies who build offices, turn the lights on brightly to advertise them, stick a For Rent notice outside, hire a security guard and disappear to the Mediterranean. In my view, that is undesirable.
	The hon. Member for Peterborough made the point about the increase in homelessnesswhich is not trueand sounded like my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher). The hon. Gentleman harked back to the days of Centrepoint, but the Centrepoint charity for the homeless came into existence because the Centrepoint tower was wilfully kept empty. We are not into that policy and we are trying to change the situation. We want to bring empty property into active use for business and commercial activities.
	It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend should concur on the issue. I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman and tell him that he is not eligible to sign the nomination form for my right hon. Friend on Monday

Edward Balls: He could cross the Floor!

Phil Woolas: I shall move swiftly on, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as both you and the Whips are looking at me very sternly.
	I have answered the point made by the hon. Gentleman about increased numbers of the homeless in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and the resolution. Other hon. Members asked whether the measure would result in companies deliberately vandalising properties or removing roofs, as happened in the past. It is proposed that we consult on measures to prevent that from happening. Generally, we take the view that that is not a likely consequence because the economic circumstances are so different from those of the 1970s. However, it is an issue that we need to address. We have, of course, consulted organisations, as I have said.
	The hon. Member for Salisbury made three strong points. I wish that he would make those points to the supporters of the Sustainable Communities Bill. I agree with their objectives, but they seem to think that simply passing a resolution would save Manor farm, the pub and Dean Hill in his constituency. Clearly, those are matters that we will have to look at.
	The hon. Gentleman also talked about planning policies that obstructed success. All constituency MPs are familiar with that, and there are empty pubs in the urban areas of my constituency as a result of planning problems. The proposals that the Government are bringing forward today must be seen in conjunction with our planning proposals, but I point out that the small business rate relief scheme applies to such businesses when they are active. The hon. Gentleman made a well researched speech, and we will reply to the specific questions that he raised.
	The same is true for the hon. Member for St. Albans, whose speech contained four broad points. The third and fourth concerned deliberate vandalisation and the Valuation Office Agency, and I have answered those, but she also referred to Tesco. It amuses me that the Opposition have discovered that company to be public enemy No. 1, as I should have thought that the party of the free market would support successful companies such as Tesco.
	Curiously, the hon. Member for St. Albans also said that the local development framework had been overridden. If that is the case, I should like to help her.

Anne Main: For clarification, the local development framework has allocated that site for housing, and housing permission was granted on the Evershed site. The site was sold on to Tesco and, although any commercial development business could have acquired it just as easily, that company has kept it and now wants to develop it. The matter has not got as far as planning but remains at the consultation stage. That means that the original permission has not been overridden yetthank goodness!

Phil Woolas: I understand the hon. Lady's point, and the whole House will be familiar with it. In fact, I visited a similar case in north Liverpool only recently.
	The hon. Lady also mentioned the Odeon cinema, and I am with her in wanting that to be reopened. It would be a lovely asset to her town

Anne Main: City.

Phil Woolas: I apologise. The cinema would be an asset to her city, but the fact remains that there appears to be no developer willing to take the project on, despite the public support that it enjoys. Nothing that the Government might do about planning legislation will change that. I do not believe that the proposal before us would hinder that process: on the contrary, I believe that it will help because, if it impacts business activity by changing planning decisions, that will be beneficial. That is part of its purpose, and it is an exact corollary of what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath said.
	I therefore hope that the House will support the motion. I appreciate that serious points have been made in what has been a good-natured debate. I look forward to discussing them further on Second Reading and as the Bill proceeds through a Committee of the whole House.
	 Resolved ,
	That provision may be made for and in connection with the liability of owners of unoccupied hereditaments to a non-domestic rate.
	 Ordered,
	That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolution: And that the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Hain, Secretary Ruth Kelly, Mr. Stephen Timms, John Healey, Mr. Phil Woolas, Ed Balls and Angela E. Smith do prepare and bring it in.

Rating (Empty Properties)

Mr. Phil Woolas accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for and in connection with the liability of owners of unoccupied hereditaments to a non-domestic rate: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second Time on Monday 14th May, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 102].

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANISATION (NORTHUMBERLAND)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Alan Campbell.]

Alan Beith: I know that the Minister for Local Government, who replied to the previous debate, has handed over responsibility for this debate to his ministerial colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela E. Smith). However, while he is here, I want to draw to his attention to the fact that every Member of Parliament for Northumberland is in his place for this debate. They all agree in their preference for a two-district solution to local government in the county, and they do not support the single-district solution that the county council has proposed. The Minister has kept both options on the table and we shall be discussing them in this debate, which his colleague the Under-Secretary will answer.
	I declare an interest in that my wife is a member of the county council and, since last Thursday, of Berwick-upon-Tweed borough council, too. The wife of the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) is also a county councillor, and we agree with our wives on these issuesas we do on so many matters.
	It is a unique situation: four MPs in three political parties are in broad agreement about the direction that Northumberland should take. I defy the Under-Secretary to find another example from the whole round of local government reorganisation in which she is so assisted by unanimity on one proposal. I hope she and her colleagues take that factor carefully into account.
	Northumberland is inherently a difficult area in which to implement a unitary system. The advantages of unitary local government are strong and obvious: it is much less confusing for the public, savings can be made and there are more opportunities for the council to deploy its funds to a wider range of services and to relate those services to each other. However, for geographical reasons, we have hung on to the two-tier system until now, even though in parts it is under severe strain and presents real problems in the smaller districts. These days, the county council is not a successful authoritycertainly much less so than in my earliest years as a Member of Parliamentand has run into serious problems. I do not say that the problems have nothing to do with who controls the council, but a number of other factors are involved, too.
	At district council level, so difficult has been the recruitment and retention of planning officersfor example, in Berwick borough councilthat the council faces making a decision on three wind farm planning applications with no planning officers to advise it on its policy. The council has had to hand out that function to consultants who may in future be employed by the very developers on whose applications they are giving advice. That is a deeply unsatisfactory situation.

Denis Murphy: I understand the problems Northumberland county council faces at present, and has faced for several years, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the main difficulties is that successive Governments have not always recognised the county's super-sparsity, which has a particular impact on education and social services? Recently, the county council tried to get rid of surplus school places, but on three occasions an appeal against school closure went against the council. Is that not a particular problem?

Alan Beith: That is one of the factors I had in mind when I said that there are many reasons why there are difficulties with the two-tier system. The hon. Gentleman is right: the financial formula has not worked in Northumberland's favour at all. Indeed, one of the merits of the two-district solution is that sparsity may be taken more into account, instead of being masked by the fact that there is a significant urban population. Furthermore, some of the deprivation factors that apply in urban areas might be given more weight if there were two separate authorities. At present, we miss out on all sorts of things that are intended for rural areas even though we are one of the most sparsely populated areas in the country, because there is a mixture of extremely sparse and highly concentrated areas of population in the same county.
	If the two-tier system were to continue, lots of joint working would be needed, but the county has shown no willingness at all to engage with the idea of enhanced two-tier working. There have been approaches from the districts, but the county has shown no interest. There is a danger that we may still end up with a two-tier system and no great prospect of changing or improving it; Northumberland may be put on the too difficult pile, because two possible unitary solutions are in play. That would be a pity, because we need to move forward in some way and I am disappointed that the county has not actively pursued the enhanced two-tier alternative.
	That all six district councils in Northumberland have agreed that there should be a two-unitary solution is extremely unusual in local government reorganisation. The councils are controlled by different parties and in most cases there is no overall control, but every district and every political party involved agreed on the same solution. The county leadership decided to put forward a one-unitary solution, but it could not get that through its own council, despite having a majority. It had hastily to redraft the resolution supporting a single authority solution to indicate that both proposals were going forward. Without the acknowledgement that both proposals were valid, its resolution would not have got through at all.
	The Northumberland proposal is a one-size-fits-all approach and is not capable of responding to the needs of the diverse communities of the county. There are two distinct parts of Northumberland. When I say Northumberland, I mean the present administrative county. If we were talking about the real Northumberland, we would be talking about areas long since transferred into other authorities such as North Tyneside and Newcastle. This is not an argument about the historic county of Northumberland, which is much bigger and has a much larger population than the administrative county whose future as one or two unitary authorities we are discussing.
	Within the administrative county, there is an urban south-east and a rural area of west, mid and north Northumberland. Not a single member of the county's cabinet comes from the rural area and I think that there are only two members on the executive of the county council who come from outside the Wansbeck and Blyth Valley districts. That is an inherent weakness in the way in which things work and its results can be seen in the decisions that the county takes.
	Many regional organisations say that unitary status is needed and that they will work effectively with whatever structure is implemented, because they think that it will be more efficient than a two-tier system. The White Paper is all about allowing citizens the opportunity to shape the communities that they live in. In that case, why are we still considering a single unitary proposal that does not have the support of Northumberland residents, its community organisations, its district councils or its Members of Parliament? Instead, we have the option of having a rural Northumberland authority, with a population of 164,000 and a south-east Northumberland authority, with a population of 142,000. Let me just underline the difference between the two. The population of the rural area works out as one person for every 3 hectares; the population of the urban south-east proposed authority works out at 10.6 people per hectare. That gives an indication of the fundamental difference.
	On 27 March, the Department for Communities and Local Government announced which proposals were going forward to stakeholder consultation. To quite a lot of people's surprise, in Northumberland two proposals went forward: the county's proposal for one unitary authority and the districts' proposal for two unitary authorities. I think that all the councils in Northumberland would probably have preferred the Secretary of State to identify a single preference, but, along with Bedfordshire and Cheshire, we have two potential solutions and probably a longer period of uncertainty.
	Why is that so, when the people of Northumberland have already voted on the matter? In the referendum in November 2004 on regional government, they were given the opportunity to decide between a two- authority solution and a one-authority solution in exactly the format that they are now proposed. Some 56.2 per cent. voted for the two-unitary option and only 43.8 per cent. opted for a single council. Far from there being any evidence that opinion has moved in favour of a single authority since then, an ICM opinion poll in December 2006 showed that 67 per cent. were in favour of a two-council option.

Denis Murphy: The right hon. Gentleman's point about the number of organisations, including political organisations, that support the two-unitary system is well made. Is he aware that the boundary committee, in its report published in May 2004, stated:
	We consider that the division of the county into two unitary authorities could help address the differing needs and priorities of the urban and rural communities in Northumberland. It could enable each council to gear responses to the specific issues of residents in its area, providing a local focus and a close link to the public.?
	Does he think that that statement takes the argument forward?

Alan Beith: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to quote that statement from the boundary committee. I agree with it.
	The Government have put forward assessment criteria against which the authorities have to be measured. Both bids qualified as capable of delivering savings. Some people expressed concern about whether there is an element of cross-subsidy from the urban to the rural area that might be lost if we had a two- authority solution. My belief is that that will almost certainly be offset by what happens with the funding formulafor the reason that I gave earlier. At present, the rural area is deprived of the provision that the Government rightly make available for sparsely populated rural areas because its figures are buried within those of a larger area with a substantial urban component.
	Three different marks could be given for the likelihood that the outcomes specified in the criteria would be satisfied: a high likelihood, a reasonable likelihood and little likelihood. Both bids passed on all counts, so it was judged that there was at least a reasonable likelihood of each of the criteriaaffordability, cross-section of support, strategic leadership, neighbourhood engagement and service deliverybeing achieved. However, I am puzzled by how the scoring was done. For example, the proposal for a single unitary council got a reasonable rating for cross-section of support, but there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is a cross-section of support in Northumberland for the county's single-council solution. In fact, there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary. The districts' two-council bid also got a reasonable rating for cross-section of support, even though all the evidence shows that there is a high cross-section of support for that proposal.
	Councils have not yet been given any information about the rationale behind the scoring, except for that in the Department's letter of 27 March. Having scored the criteria, the Department seems to be saying that the really important issue is whether the overall threshold is passed, rather than the scoring of the individual criteria. However, during some of the discussions, a lot is being made of the scorings that have been achieved.
	Let us consider the cross-section of support again. I have mentioned the referendum and the opinion of the four Northumberland Members. More than 100 local organisations support the two-authority option. That bid has as wide a cross-section of support as could be achieved for any reorganisation proposal. However, the county council's bid was only just supported by that council when it was considered alongside the other bid, so the support was very qualified. Some regional stakeholders said that they were doing no more than commending unitary government in principle, rather than distinguishing between the proposals.
	Most of the regional bodies that have indicated support for the county's bid are much bigger than the county itself. It suits them to have fewer local authorities to deal with, and their structure does not address the problem that we are examining: how to keep local government reasonably local. The arguments about the police are sometimes cited. The police force covers a much larger area than the existing county and it wants to be bigger still. It wanted to amalgamate with two further police forces, but the Government wisely decided that that would not be a good idea. I do not think that the police authority is the best body on which to rely in this matter, given that the Government have not seen fit to support the authority's record. The White Paper is about putting communities at the centre of decision making, so the scoring should have reflected that more accurately.
	Curiously, the scoring received by the proposals on strategic leadership did not seem to be entirely accurate. However, perhaps even more doubtful is the scoring on neighbourhood engagement. Some councils have scored extremely well on neighbourhood engagement. Blyth Valley is a beacon council for community engagement, while Wansbeck district council's LIFElocal initiative for everythingmodel has been praised. The county's neighbourhood engagement takes place through a system of area committees. While that could work well, the authority is not taking much notice of the area committees in some parts of the county, so even the existing mechanism is not being used.
	I realise that the Under-Secretary will not be able to say a lot in response to the debate because she is part of the consultation process. However, if the Government were to adopt the county's proposal for a single authority, would the county be treated as a continuing authority under the Local Government Act 1992? If it were, the existing county apparatus would essentially survive, and rather than having new authorities in which all positions would be up for open competition to allow people with the experience and qualifications to do the job to be selected, the county's staffing structure would be preserved to a large extent. I hope that the Minister will address that matter, even though I hope we will not face such a situation because I want the Government to go for the two-council option.
	The next criterion I want to consider is service delivery. Satisfaction levels and residents' experiences of the authorities demonstrate that the county council's services are, in a number of respects, worse than those of most of the district councils. There are a number of respects in which having an authority the size of the present county manifestly does not work. We have experienced particular problems with education and school transport. The county council has failed every attempt to win Government support for its projects under the building schools for the future programme. Every single bid that it has made has been turned down. It now looks as though it will be 2014 before we are even in with a chance. There must be something wrong, and I put that to the Minister for Schools, who came up to the region. Clearly, officers in the relevant Department do not regard the county's bids as satisfactory. There is a serious element of the Government not valuing the kind of proposals that the county makes. That may partly reflect the difficulties of running education services in such a diverse county.
	To take the case of school transport, the county failed to bid for funds that it would have received from the Learning and Skills Council, and so deprived itself of money that was available. Partly as a consequence, it is charging everyone over 16 who needs school transport 360 a year to get to school or college, and that is in an area where the take-up of post-16 education is low. It has denied college students from Berwick rail passes to get to college in Newcastle. Instead of a 45-minute train journey, they face a bus journey of an hour and a half, or an hour and three quarters, and many of them simply opt out, or pay to travel on the train. Those points illustrate the fact that the county is not able to administer some of its services satisfactorily in such a diverse area. That is one of the drivers behind people feeling that they would be better off with two authorities, rather than one.

Ronnie Campbell: May I raise the issue of the vulnerable, including the homeless and old people? The county got zero stars in that area, and in fact I received a ministerial letter the other week to tell me that a team is being sent to the county council to try to lift its performance so that the vulnerable can have some sort of representation in Northumberland.

Alan Beith: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He knows the area well, particularly the strains and stresses in the urban area around Blyth Valley. It gives me no pleasure to say that the county is letting us down on a number of key services. There are some difficulties that have made that the case. However, people should take certain things into account before they assume that because we have a county council it could be the basis for a unitary authority and that everything will work well, including all the services now run by the district councils, including housing. Recently, there was a sharp increase in charges for home help and community care. That really hits vulnerable people in the area. I hope that the Government can help the county council to do better in various ways, but the examples that I have given do not represent evidence that running a single authority on the basis of the present county would be a good idea.

Ronnie Campbell: That brings me to another point: the council put up the charges for home help for old people by 5. That increase was to generate 1 million. My wife, who is a county councillorI declare that as an interesthas three times asked what had happened to that money. The argument was that it would go back into services for old people, but it disappeared and no one could find out where it had gone. I know where it has gone, but of course no one wants to say. My wife is still hanging on to that question; she still has not had an answer on where the money that the old people were charged went.

Alan Beith: Given the exchanges that have taken place, the Under-Secretary must be beginning to understand that there are four people in the Chamber who have an intimate knowledge of the problems that the county council faces. We have all been led to the conclusion that there is no basis for a single unitary authority in Northumberland, and we have given a number of examples of why that is so.
	If the Government opt for a single authority, I confidently predict that there will be a vigorous campaign against the idea. The district councils have a mandate for such a campaign, and local organisations will want to back that campaign. On the other hand, if the Government opt for two unitary authorities, the county council will have no mandate to campaign against the proposal, as its own resolution actually supports both proposals. I do not think that Northumbria police or any other regional authorities are going to go to the barricades to try to save a proposal that has been so widely criticised. If the Government want to win the confidence and support of people in Northumberland, they should opt for the two-authority scheme. If they were so unwise as to try to promote the single-authority scheme, they would face severe opposition.

Denis Murphy: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. The county council's problems are compounded by the fact that in its proposal it suggests that a political status quo exists in the single unitary authoritythat is, it would be quite happy if a leader were elected from the cabinetwhereas the two-unitary system obviously proposes that there should be elected mayors, which is very much in line with the White Paper.

Alan Beith: The hon. Gentleman reminds me of a point that I should have made earlier. On those grounds, the two-unitary solution proposed by the district councils satisfies the Government's criterion for strategic leadership much more closely than the county's own proposal. It is a much more explicit attempt to meet that particular demand from the Government.
	If, after all that, the Government said, Oh, it's too difficult. Let's just leave it alone, there would be a great deal of disappointment among people on all sides of the argument, and there would not be a very promising atmosphere in which to achieve an enhanced two-tier system, which is the only viable alternative. It would be a system in which authorities would have to share services a great deal. I am not saying that it would be a bad thing, but it would be necessary to plan the sharing of services, staff and so on. It would require a big change of attitude in the county council and in the district councils, too. I have not seen any evidence in discussions that the county is willing to undertake such lateral thinking. All the indicationscertainly everything that my three colleagues would want to proposesuggests that a two-unitary authority solution is the right way forward.

Ronnie Campbell: Briefly, I had better declare an interest, as my wife is a member of the county council. She is a willing turkey, unlike those whose seats and jobs are vulnerable.
	I want to make a couple of comparisons. When my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) and I went to see the Prime Minister, he said that he backed a one-tier system in Durham. However, I must remind the Minister that Durham is an entirely different county from Northumberland. She should not fall into the same trap as the Prime Minister and think that Northumberland is the same as Durham, because it is not. Northumberland has one Tory Member of Parliamentthe hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson)as well as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who is a Liberal, my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck and me. That is the make-up of Northumberland. The make-up of Durham is solid Labour. Whether Durham had five tiers, three tiers, two tiers, or one tier, it would be Labour. When decisions are being made, those things should be looked at first.
	I tried to secure a referendum, but the proposal failed because it was too late. If the county wanted to hold a referendum, it could have done so in March, but it did not go down that road. It huffed and it puffed, but it did not do so. If it had done, we might have had a proper referendum in Northumberland, although we have already had one, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said. That proposal failed, but I have decided to run my own survey in my constituency. In fact, I have the honour of being the first Member in the House of Commons to use the communications money in that way. I phoned the authorities straight away and said, Can I use it for a survey and an article in the newspapers, and ask people to indicate which tier of local government they want in Northumberland? That was duly done, and the first advert appeared last weekthe second one will appear this week. There was an overwhelming response. I am just counting the responses, which stand at 200 in favour of the two-tier system and 49 in favour of the single-tier system. A pattern is emerging, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said. There is support for a two-tier system. It is a pity that we cannot have a referendum throughout Northumberland. That would give a better picture, but there is already some information from Blyth. As soon as the survey is finished, I will send the results to the Minister, as they are a reflection of people's views.
	Turkeys do not like an early Christmas, and of course members of the county council are fighting. They have good jobs and we all know what happens when reorganisations and boundary changes take place. Even Members of Parliament lose their seats. Council members must accept that such things happen, although I do not blame them for fighting to keep their seats. However, the county council is not a gravy train for them. It is for the people of Northumberland to decide what they want, and they are overwhelmingly in favour of a two-tier system.
	I have seen the submission. I do not want to speak untruths, but some of it reads like Walt Disneyland. When I met the Minister to discuss schools in Blyth, I asked him, Who told you that? The county council or the civil servant in question obviously told him.
	The county council is clutching at straws, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said. The services that it runs are just about zero. It has not got many stars for anything. It has two stars for two services and none for services to the vulnerable, which I mentioned earlier, because it has closed all the homes. The council acted rashly and, I think, made a big mistake. The Government did not give the county money for the schools programme. I believe that all the money, including the 1 million that was supposed to be saved for the old people's home helps, was put into education.
	In the budget a couple of years ago, transport was cut by half and the money put into education. I am sure that that is what the council is doing with all the other services, so all the other services suffer in order to get the schools building programme on the agenda. That is a big, big mistake. When the council said that it would do that, I remember telling it, If you haven't got the money, don't do it. The Minister responsible for schools at the time told me to keep out of the argument. How a Member of Parliament can keep out of an argument like that beats me.
	I believe that that is where the council went wrong. It has problems because it is overstretched trying to provide transport and schools in rural areas, which is very difficult. Transport in rural Northumberland is almost non-existent, and it is not good in Blyth Valley or Wansbeck. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck and I have been trying to get a train service there. We are having difficulty, although there is a train line. All we have in Blyth Valley and Wansbeck is a bus service, which runs a lot better than in some areas of Northumberland.
	The question is the best way forward for the people of Northumberland. I am glad to say that they are thinking the right way. They think the county should be split into rural and urban areas so that something can be done. A lot of cross-border activity takes place. We will work togetherthat is a racing certaintyand go forward. I hope the Minister and the Cabinet will take that on board.

Peter Atkinson: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate local government in the House. I am also grateful for the fact that not many Members of Parliament were interested in discussing empty commercial buildings, so we can have a proper Adjournment on the subject.
	I am pleased to see the Minister in her place. After Northern Ireland, the affairs of local government in Northumberland should be much easier to crack. I strongly urge her not to put this to one side and say that it is too difficult.
	Local government reform in Northumberland has been around for many years. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that this is the third attempt. Under the Conservative Government, Lord Heseltine, as he is now, had a go at it, but eventually walked away when there was no final agreement about its shape. This time, we have some solid agreement between all four Members of Parliament and all six district councils.
	I want to reinforce one or two points that have been made. Local government reform in Northumberland has always been bedevilled by the geography. We have a population of some 300,000about the size of a small London boroughyet the county is one of the biggest in England. As we heard, students at Berwick take an hour and a bit to get to Newcastle. Getting to one of the hospitals in the east of the county used by my constituents takes a drive of an hour and 20 minutes. We are talking about very substantial distancesprobably 70 miles from north to south and 50 miles from east to west.
	That makes a difference in achieving a local government system that is efficient as well as local. Getting that balance right has been extremely hard and has defeated us on the previous two occasions. Now we think that we have got it right and that the two-authority system will work. In fact, it offers an opportunity to do some new things, because it is a model that does not exist anywhere else in the country. It may be possible for two authorities co-operating on several matters to deliver the efficiencies of scale that people say would be delivered by a unitary county. We have heard about the loss of services. In Northumberland, social services are already provided jointly with the NHS. We should also put into the pictureperhaps unhappily for a Conservativethe fact that we now have a fairly strong regional dimension, so decisions on matters such as planning and transport infrastructure, which could have been taken at county level, are taken at a higher level. The two authorities should be more than capable of co-operating to deliver efficient services.
	Let me cite a slightly controversial example of where the system would work. The county council has determined that the three-tier school system, which we still have in Northumberland, should change to a two-tier system. There are arguments for changing to two-tier and for maintaining three-tier, but the arguments for two-tier are undoubtedly stronger in the urban, more densely populated areas than in the rural areas. The consequence of moving to a two-tier system in my constituencyI am sure that it is the same for the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweedwould be that nine-year-olds would have to travel for more than two hours a day in coaches to get to school. After reorganisation, a three-tier system would have to exist anyway. That is an illustration of how the education system in a rural area would be better determined by a rural authority than by a unitary authority.
	I accept that our funding problems arose because the formulae have never properly taken population sparsity into consideration. It always amazes me that Northumberland has a lower sparsity than Norfolk. That is based on some spurious system invented by somebody long departed who took with him or her the secret of how to calculate it. It is apparently calculated on the basis of parishes, but it seems to affect rural areas very much. There is a chance of getting some better funding into our area, which is much needed to provide services.

Alan Beith: Was the hon. Gentleman surprised that the Government added to their list of consultees the county councils group in the Local Government Association but not the association that gathers together sparsely populated local authorities, which has done a lot of work on this? Does not that make us worry somewhat that the Government are still not taking sufficient account of the factors that are relevant to rural Northumberland?

Peter Atkinson: Indeed. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It was surprising that that body was left out of the consultation. The provision of services in rural areas has increasingly moved up the political agenda. The Government need to take account of that when they consider the final outcome to the matter.

Denis Murphy: The hon. Gentleman mentioned one or two innovations that the two unitaries introduced. Does he agree that one of the better ones is their decision, although they are financially independent, to share most of the costs that are currently covered by the county of Northumberland? An independent, not-for-profit company would be set up to deliver many of the services on behalf of both unitaries, thus substantially reducing the council tax for the people of Northumberland.

Peter Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Some good ideas have been presented and I believe that the two-tier system will be a model for other parts of the country. I am sure that it will workthe council officers in the district councils, who are enthusiastic about it, will make it work. I am confident that we will end up with a good system that best serves the people of Northumberland.

Angela Smith: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on securing the debate on what is obviously a key issue for the people of Northumberland. I appreciate the strong feelings that have been expressed. There are few occasions in the House when all three parties agree and it is a rare opportunity for a Minister to respond to such a debate. I am grateful to all four hon. Members who took partmy hon. Friends the Members for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy), and for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), as well as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweedfor their contributions.
	Let me first provide some context. As hon. Members know, we initially received 26 proposals from local authorities for the creation of unitary authorities, in response to the invitation that we issued alongside the local government White Paper in October last year. After careful consideration, it was announced that 16 proposals could be taken forward to be short listed and we could then proceed to a stakeholder consultation.
	The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said that he understood the constraints on what I can say today because we are in a legal process about consultations. Much as hon. Members might like me to go into detail about the merits or otherwise of the specific proposals or the authorities involved, I cannot. The reasons for our judgment were set out in the letter of decision that was sent to councils on 27 March. Many points that hon. Members made tonight are on the merits of the proposals.
	I should like to deal with the questions that have been asked in the debate and set out how we reached our current position and the way in which we proceed from here. We published our invitation in response to the views that had been expressed during a long-standing debate on the future of local government. However, as the hon. Member for Hexham said, it has not lasted as long as the debate on the future of Northern Ireland, which reached a successful conclusion this week. Existing arrangements in some twotier areas do not deliver the governance that places need today. All hon. Members made that point, especially the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. He outlined the risks, challenges and difficulties in a two-tier structure. There can be confusion, duplication and inefficiency between the tiers.
	There is a view that moving to a unitary structure could improve accountability, create a stronger, more focused leadership in the local authority, improve the local authority's efficiency and especially improve the outcomes in service delivery for local people. My hon. Friends the Members for Wansbeck and for Blyth Valley stressed that point.
	Allowing restructuring was our response to that, and that view was held in several areas, as shown by the 26 proposals that were made to the Government. On 27 March, my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government announced that 16 proposals were being taken to stakeholder consultation, including the two proposals from Northumberland. In making that decision, the Government had to have regard to all the relevant informationthe submitted proposals, any supplementary material from the proposers and any other available relevant information.
	We have written to all the councils that submitted proposals, setting out the reasons and the basis on which the decisions were made. All 26 proposals were judged against the five criteria that the Government published earlier. Our judgment is that there is at least a reasonable likelihood that the 16 proposals, if implemented, would achieve the outcome specified by the criteria. I shall not comment on the specific proposals, as I have already said, but I would like to set out the criteria and say something about them, while also responding to some of the questions.
	First, we were clear that the proposals had to be affordable. The changed unitary structure had to represent value for money and had to be met from a council's existing resources. They also had to be supported by a broad cross-section of partners and stakeholders. Comments were made about the relative value and relative merits of the amount of support for each proposal, which will be taken into account in the consultation that proceeds. At this stage, all that was being requested was that there was support for the proposal from some stakeholders.
	The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed asked about the previous referendum in November 2004. I have to say that that took place in a different context and a different backdrop in 2004, but that does not mean that it can be dismissed. It, alongside other information, can be taken into account and it has been submitted in evidence as part of the consideration. The weight that can be attached to referendums and other such pollsthe metropolitan area of Blyth Valley has been mentioneddepends on the question asked and how far it can be judged to be impartial and not to lead people a certain way, on how easily it can be understood by voters and the ease with which they can make a judgment on the information, and on the efforts taken to provide a fair and balanced explanation of the complex issues involved. All those matters can be taken into account. Indeed, they have been and are being submitted as part of the consultation on the proposals.
	In addition to those two criteria of affordability and support, the proposals have to provide strong, effective and accountable strategic leadership; they have to offer genuine opportunities for neighbourhood flexibility and empowerment; and they have to deliver value for money and equity on public services. After consideration, it was decided that 10 of the proposals should proceed to stakeholder consultation. Having regard to the relevant information, the judgment was that there was not a reasonable likelihood that, if implemented, the proposals would achieve all the outcomes specified in the five criteria.
	The hon. Member for Hexham and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed asked why certain bodies were consulted and others, particularly SPARSESparsity Partnership for Authorities Delivering Rural Servicesleft off the list. The list of consultees is not a definitive list of the only bodies that can be consulted. The chairs of local strategic partnerships and many other bodies were also consulted. Every chief executive in all the local authorities that had put proposals forward was contacted and told that any other body or group could be consulted and information passed on to others if appropriate. We said that we would have regard to all the representations received from any quarter. No group of organisations was disbarred or prevented from responding to the consultation.

Alan Beith: May I take the Minister back to the scoring of the criteria? Is she saying that the criteria were established to decide which bids should go forward and that as long as they had a reasonable likelihood of satisfying the outcomes, they went forwardand that that was the end of it, so wider consultation is now taking place? Alternatively, is she saying that the grade achieved in the scoring remains a key factor in the Government's eventual decision? If she is saying the latter, we will want to question the basis on which the scoring was done, because it is manifestly wrong in relation to cross-sectional support for the county proposal, for example, and in a number of other cases that I cited.

Angela Smith: I shall come back to the right hon. Gentleman if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the former is the case and that we have moved forward to stakeholder consultation, which will now inform the decision making. I am receiving an enlightened nod, so I am right that it is the former. Decisions were taken and have since proceeded. Consultation is now under way and judgments will be made about which part of the proposals will go forward, if either go forward, on the basis of that consultation and subsequent evaluation and judgment. I hope that that satisfies the right hon. Gentleman on that matter. He also asked why we are still consulting on the county proposals, but perhaps the answer that I gave to the last question also addresses that issue for him. We are now making a judgment on the relative merits of proposals from the consultation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck mentioned the Electoral Commission's proposals from 2004. Again, those may be submitted and taken into account as part of the consultation. The consultation will last for 12 weeks, finishing on 22 June. As I have said, we welcome comments, information and views from key partners and stakeholders who have an interest in the areas affected by the two short-listed proposals. As the invitation explains, partners and stakeholders include all local authorities, the wider public sector, the business community, and the voluntary and community sector. Anyone may respond. There are copies of the consultation document in the Library of the House and it can also be obtained from the Department and from the Department's website.
	After the stakeholder consultation, we will need to consider carefully all the representations that we have received. All the information provided to Ministers will be considered in the course of the examination of the issues. I want to give an assurance to the four MPs who are here in the Chamber that the views that they have expressed today will be taken into account, but they might wish to make formal submissions as well.
	The proposals will move to implementation if, and only if, when the final decisions are taken, we are satisfied that they meet the criteria and that they remain affordable. We will also need to be satisfied that they have taken into account all the possible risks involved in the implementation. Careful consideration will be given to the findings of the consultation.

Alan Beith: I think that we concluded earlier that both bids had passed the basic teststhat they had both crossed the threshold. I have not seen any new information to date, and unless any emerges the Government must surely now be considering what the people of Northumberland actually wantI submit that their view is more important than that of large or outside organisationsand what quality can be achieved. We are not really going back to whether the proposals are affordable, because that has already been established.

Angela Smith: We have established the likelihood of affordability, and we are satisfied. That is why the proposals have gone forward. However, we cannot discount any new information that might come to light. We shall take into account the views of the people of Northumberland, and of organisationsthere are many organisations in Northumberland that clearly want to make their views knownbut I shall not discount any new information that is relevant to all the criteria that have been set out. It would be wrong to write off any information that we might receive on the range of issues that we have to take into account.
	Whether or not councils move to unitary status, all councils at district and county level will have to develop far more effective ways of working together. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made a point about the problems of inefficiency and ineffectiveness in some areas with a two-tier system. That proposal will not change for the areas that do not get a unitary system; they will all have to work better and more effectively, whatever the outcome.
	We are talking about the devolutionary principle, and about the Government giving local authorities the opportunity to make a bid for unitary status. We have received two bids from Northumberland. This is a new era of local government, and when it comes to the choices about how we move forward, it is down to local councils, their partners and their citizensin this case, the citizens of Northumberlandto make responses to the Government.

Alan Beith: I did ask the Minister a question of which I gave her office notice earlier today: if the Government were unwisely contemplating acceptance of the single authority proposal, would that be treated as a continuing authority under the 1992 legislation, as that has pretty serious implications?

Angela Smith: We are jumping ahead a little bit in presuming the outcome; decisions have not been taken. The right hon. Gentleman used the term, continuing authority, which has sometimes been used in the past during reorganisations. Any unitary authority implemented as a result of the current process would be, as generally understood, a brand new authority; it would not be a continuing authority. The use of the term continuing authority was for a technical reason in relation to proceeding with a new organisation. No decisions have been taken on how a particular proposal would be implemented. A working group of stakeholders has been set up to examine all the implementation proposals. Within the limits of the legislation, we are prepared to be flexible on that. His point is noted, but no decision has been taken on implementation.
	I thank Members for their contributions and I assure them that their comments will be taken into account.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Five o'clock.